State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Vicki S. McConnell, State Geologist Open-File Report O-07-02 STATEWIDE SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT: IMPLEMENTATION OF OREGON 2005 SENATE BILL 2 RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY, EARTHQUAKES, AND SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGSREPORT TO THE SEVENTY-FOURTH OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYBy Don Lewis 1 2007 1 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon St., Suite 965, Portland, Oregon 97232.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
K-12 Public School Districts & Education Service Districts 170 1101 2185
Community College Districts 17 179 184
Sum Education 187 1280 2369
Emergency Facilities:
City Districts (Police and Fire Departments) 143 327
Rural Fire Protection Districts 191 440
County Sheriff Offices 34 73
Oregon State Police 1 26
Port of Portland 1 1
Acute Care Hospitals 58 116
Sum Emergency 428 983 SUM ALL: 3352
*There are 179 community college buildings and 184 “building entities” at the 17 campuses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries’ work on thestatewide seismic needs assessment of Oregon education and emergency services buildings, as directed bythe 73rd Legislative Assembly (Senate Bill 2, 2005).
This assessment is but one step in the multi-decade process aimed at improving the life safety of Oregonians from the risks associated with earthquakes. The awareness of earthquake hazards in Oregon
increased significantly as geologic evidence of “Great Earthquakes” along the Cascadia Subduction Zonewas uncovered beginning in 1986. DOGAMI began mapping earthquake hazards in the Portland area in1987.
Today, the statewide building code and engineering design take into account the significant lateralforces generated by the ground motions associated with earthquakes. Most damage during an earthquake iscaused by ground motion. However, buildings constructed in Oregon prior to the 1990s were built to lowerseismic standards and are especially at risk of collapse and other forms of structural failure during anearthquake.
An integral piece of this assessment makes use of a federal technique known as FEMA 154, the rapidvisual screening (RVS) of buildings for potential seismic hazards, to identify, inventory, and rank buildingsthat are potentially seismically hazardous.
The inventory
and estimatedreplacement cost of the building stock that form the basisof this assessmentincludes 3,352buildings. Thepublic schoolsassessed represent97% of the totalenrollment for the2005-06 academic
year. Excludinghospitals, theestimatedreplacement valueof this building stock totals approximately $11.5 billion, led by the K-12 schools at 85%, communitycolleges 8%, fire 5%, and police 2%.
After developing the building inventory spatial database, including mapping the physical locations of every site and their seismicity regions, DOGAMI contracted with experienced parties at the three majorOregon universities to collect the FEMA 154 field data. The key field data relate to the structural types andcharacteristics of each building. To ensure consistent data collection, DOGAMI developed a portable digitaldata entry system and rules for making key determinations in the field; the system included an integrateddigital photo camera to record the visual evidence. All relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data
will be available for interested parties in various formats on CD-ROM and via the Agency’s web page byJune 30, 2007. An interactive website containing the complete report, building scores, and backgroundinformation is now online at http://www.oregongeology.com.
The five key parameters that determine the relative seismic risk of a building are the:1. Seismic Zone (how hard the ground is expected to shake in a given area),2. Building Structural Type (wood frame, reinforced masonry, steel frame, etc.),3. Building Irregularities (the shape of the building),4. Original Construction Date, and5. Soil Type (softer soils amplify the severity of ground motion).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment iv
The FEMA 154 technique results in a score ranging from 0.0 to 6.8 (negative scores are possible, butthese effectively translate to a score of 0.0). This score is particularly useful to characterize the relativeseismic risk within the universe of buildings being considered, but it is not an absolute measure for any onebuilding of where and how structural failure will occur.
The score relates to the probability that the building will collapse if ground motions occur that are equalto or exceed the maximum considered earthquake at that location. The maximum considered earthquake isdefined as the maximum event considered likely in a reasonable amount of time. The maximum considered
earthquake for any location is determined by the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) work, mostrecently updated in 2002. This information can be found online at:http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/ .
A RVS score of 2.0 implies there is a chance of 1 in 102, or 1 in 100, that the building will collapse. Ascore of 0.0 implies a chance of 1 in 100, or 1 in 1. FEMA recommends that all buildings with a score of 2.0or less should be considered to have inadequate performance during the anticipated maximum seismicevent. DOGAMI has refined the relative rank of the RVS scores into four categories: Very High, High,Moderate, and Low seismic risk, or collapse potential.
The score and ranking results for the buildings in Oregon assessed by this project are:
Summary of Seismic Risk for all Qualifying Sites & Buildings Score: <0.0 0.1-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0
# of # of # of FEMA 154-Based Collapse Potential
Seismic Needs Assessment District Districts Schools Buildings Very High High Moderate Low
Education:
K12 Public School Districts & ESD 170 1101 2185 273 745 501 666
Community College Districts 17 179 184 20 73 33 58
Sum Education 187 1280 2369 293 818 534 724
Emergency:
City Districts (Police & Fire Departments) 143 327 26 78 75 148
Rural Fire Protection Districts 191 440 13 62 62 303
County Sheriff's Offices 34 73 5 24 18 26
Oregon State Police 1 26 0 5 4 17
Port of Portland 1 1 0 0 0 1Acute Care Hospitals 58 116 10 26 10 70
Sum Emergency 428 983 54 195 169 565
SUM ALL: 3352 347 1013 703 1289
10% 30% 21% 38%
It is important to note that these probability of collapse estimates are based upon limited observed and
analytical data, and the probability of collapse ranking is therefore approximate. The score and ranking inthis report – Very High, High, Moderate, and Low – is related to the likelihood or probability of a buildingsustaining major life threatening damage, given the occurrence of an earthquake. Different buildingconstruction types react in different ways to earthquake shaking, and this does not necessarily mean thecomplete collapse of a building. More detailed structural investigation by qualified and experiencedengineers is required to fully assess the seismic risks and rehabilitation issues of any one building.
The age, structural types, and predominant physical irregularities of school buildings result in arelatively high proportion of schools with estimated Very High relative seismic risk. By comparison,Emergency facilities in the Very High category are lower in number and proportion. Hospitals benefit froma still-in-progress boom in new construction that incorporates the latest seismic design standards.
The 274 K-12 school buildings in the Very High category represent portions of 193 schools that contain14.5% of the statewide enrolled student population. This estimate is likely high, due to incomplete data as towhich schools have already taken action to remedy the structural design flaws in their buildings. Manyschool districts have taken such action, and some of their work has been captured in this report and data set.
As directed in Senate Bill 2 (2005), DOGAMI also developed a variety of statistical methods to assistthe Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Committee rank the relative need of school districts in particular. Theserecommended methods use federal and state data to rank the relative absence and presence of fiscal need.
DOGAMI also reviewed the relative risk of tsunami inundation at 150 sites along the Oregon coast; 48sites have moderate to high seismic risk, and another 81 sites have lower tsunami inundation risk.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment v
Oregon has relatively high seismic risk, yet the time interval between major subduction zone earthquakeevents is large, in human terms. The USGS predicts a 15% chance of a Cascadia Subduction Zoneearthquake in the next 50 years. For reference, they also predict a 62% chance of a major earthquake in theSan Francisco bay region in the next 25 years. This suggests that Oregonians have a manageable amount of time available to mitigate this risk over the next few decades.
Finally, DOGAMI makes these recommendations:
Recommendations to the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Committee
The scoring data and needs analysis from this report should be the starting point for developing the grantprogram. Very High Risk and High Risk facilities should be prioritized for consideration for rehabilitation.Acute care hospitals within community health service districts should be considered eligible for the grants.Community-based acute care hospitals should also be considered eligible for the grant program. Theimportance of individual buildings to the community needs, as outlined as part of the ranking process inSenate Bill 2 (2005), needs further clarification.
Recommendations for Districts
DOGAMI recommends districts with buildings labeled as having High and Very High relative seismic risk of collapse during a seismic event to consider hiring a structural engineering consultant to more thoroughlyevaluate the seismic issues with their buildings. Please note that this FEMA 154 rapid visual screeningtechnique can both overestimate and underestimate relative seismic risk.
Recommendations for Fiscal Decision Makers
DOGAMI recommends that voters, community representatives, government administrators, and electedofficials carefully consider both the costs and benefits associated with seismic risk mitigation, rehabilitation,and community asset replacement. Many districts in Oregon have traveled down this path already and willhave valuable hard-won experience to share. The public school seismic rehabilitation program in BritishColumbia may also provide valuable lessons.
Note about Site and Building DataData gathered and used to calculate RVS final scores and links to sitesummary reports are available in these supplemental files:
• SSNA-all-data.xls• SSNA-abridged-data.xls (also available as a PDF)
Definitions, criteria, and methodology are available in theseappendices:
• Appendix I. Spreadsheet and Site Summary Report Data FieldDefinitions
• Appendix J. Building Irregularity Matrix
• Appendix K. Rapid Visual Screening Protocol Handbook
• Appendix L. FEMA 154, 2002 edition, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A Handbook
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment vii
CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX A. QUALIFYING K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICTS ............. ............ ... 57
APPENDIX B. QUALIFYING COMMUNITY COLLEGES..... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........ 79
APPENDIX C. RVS SCORES FOR K-12 SCHOOLS.............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... .... 83
APPENDIX D. RVS SCORES FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE BUILDINGS............. ............. .............. ............. ......... 113
APPENDIX E. RVS SCORES FOR CITY FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS, COUNTY SHERIFF’SOFFICES, OREGON STATE POLICE, AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS............ ......... 117
APPENDIX F. RVS SCORES FOR HOSPITALS............... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ....... 129
APPENDIX G. DISTRICT-LEVEL RELATIVE SEISMIC RISK: K-12 AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS...... 131
APPENDIX H. DISTRICT-LEVEL RELATIVE SEISMIC RISK: FIRE AND POLICE DISTRICTSAND ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ........... 135
APPENDIX I. SPREADSHEET AND SITE SUMMARY REPORT DATA FIELD DEFINITIONS..................... ........... 143
APPENDIX J. BUILDING VERTICAL AND PLAN IRREGULARITY MATRIX............. ............. ............. ............. ...... 147
APPENDIX K. SENATE BILL 2 RAPID VISUAL SCREENING PROTOCOL HANDBOOK................. ............. ......... 149
APPENDIX L. FEMA 154, 2002 EDITION, RAPID VISUAL SCREENING OF BUILDINGS FOR POTENTIALSEISMIC HAZARDS, A HANDBOOK ............................................................................................... 171
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Types of earthquakes that affect Oregon ............ ............. ............. .............. ............. .............. .............. ...... 2Figure 2. The 2001 Nisqually (M6.8) and 1994 Northridge (M6.7) earthquakes............ ............. ............. ............. ....... 2Figure 3. National Hazard Map shows the probability of earthquake shaking. ............ ............. ............ ............. .......... 3 Figure 4. Detail of USGS hazard map showing probability of ground shaking in Oregon due to seismic activity. ..... .... 3Figure 5. Earthquake ground motion amplification in southern California ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ... 4Figure 6. Universal Building Code soil types in Oregon. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. .. 4 Figure 7. Potential annual earthquake losses in millions of dollars by county due to seismic hazard. ............ ............. 5
Figure 8. Important seismic code events and code developments. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ 6 Figure 9. Reclassification of western Oregon as an area of higher seismic hazard........... ............. ............. ............. ... 7 Figure 10. Construction dates for Oregon education and emergency facilities........... ............. ............. ............. ............ 7 Figure 11. Flow chart of the seismic needs assessment and rehabilitation process............ ............. ............. ............. ... 9 Figure 12. DOGAMI’s process to conduct seismic needs assessment of public education buildings. ............. ............ ..13 Figure 13. Steps followed to determine qualifying K-12 sites in Baker County............... ............ ............. ............. ........15 Figure 14. Location of the 1,280 education and 829 emergency sites included in the assessment...... ............. ............20 Figure 15. Example seismic needs assessment site summary report and RVS score spreadsheet.............. ..... ......... ..21 Figure 16. FEMA 154 seismicity zones in Oregon................... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .....23 Figure 17. Relationship of areas of NEHRP soil models to seismic assessment sites and ODWR well data................ .24Figure 18. Vertical and plan irregularities..................... ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ..25 Figure 19. Plan view for each site shows the location of each building assessed at the site............... ............. .............25 Figure 20. FEMA 154 benchmark dates and building structural types............ ............. ............. ............. ............. .........26 Figure 21. Computer tablets for data entry used by screeners in the field. ............. .............. ............. .............. ............27Figure 22. Hypothetical, simplified RVS score sheet. ............ .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. .....28
Figure 23. Distribution of building structural type.................... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... ............. ....29 Figure 24. RVS scores for K-12 schools and fire and police facilities............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .........30 Figure 25. Variance between K-12 and police and fire station building RVS scores............ ............. ............. ............. ..31 Figure 26. Graphical summary of seismic risk for all qualifying sites and buildings... ............ ............. ............. .............33 Figure 27. Relative collapse potential for all sites in this seismic needs assessment study.............. ............. ............ ...34 Figure 28. All locations with Very High relative seismic risk in this seismic needs assessment. ............ ............. ..........35 Figure 29. Seismic risk and need can be reduced to a two-dimensional plot. ............ ............. ............. ............. ...........37 Figure 30. Plot of school district property tax per student versus percentage of enrolled students living in poverty
for the largest 43 school districts in Oregon...............................................................................................38 Figure 31. Plot of property tax paid per enrolled student versus percentage of children in poverty for all school
districts included in the assessment..........................................................................................................39 Figure 32. Oregon school district bond measures voting results 1997–2006. ............ ............. ............. ............. ...........40 Figure 33. Impact of 1964 Alaska Tsunami at Cannon Beach, Oregon. ............ ............ ............. ............. ............. .......44 Figure 34. Computer-generated tsunami inundation zones for Florence, Oregon. ............ ............. ............. ............. ....45 Figure 35. FEMA seismic rehabilitation cost estimator tool.. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .........48
Figure 36. West Coast population growth trends for Oregon and Bristish Columbia, 1930-2005.... ............. ............. ....51Figure 37. British Columbia school district seismic zones............... ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ..........52 Figure 38. Some members of the seismic needs assessment team.... ............. ............. ............ ............. ............... ......54
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Replacement value of qualifying building stock in Oregon....................... ............ ............. ............ ............... 5Table 2. DOGAMI's qualifying public K-12 schools and education service districts............... ............. ............. ..........14Table 3. Qualifying community college district buildings... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ..........16Table 4a. Oregon Department of Human Services 2003 patient and revenue data ............. ............. ............. .............18Table 4b. Parent organization and scale of revenues.................. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. .19Table 5. Fire and police stations ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... ............. ......20Table 6. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program soil classification system........... ............ ............. ...........24Table 7. Benchmark years for building structural types in the assessment....... ............ ............. ............ .............. .....26Table 8. FEMA 154 post-benchmark dates for Oregon ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. .27
Table 9. Distribution of building types found in the assessment... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ...........29Table 10. District level seismic risk scores............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ........32Table 11. Summary of seismic risk for all qualifying sites and buildings... ............. ............. ............. ............... ............33Table 12. November 2006 Oregon School District and Community College Capital Projects Bond Measure
Election Results.......................................................................................................................................41Table 13. The 92 Oregon school districts that passed bond measures 1997–2006........... ............. ............. ............. ..42Table 14. Oregon coast relative tsunami inundation risk ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............46Table 15. Estimated seismic rehabilitation costs for Hillsboro school district schools................ ............. ............ .........50
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 1
1.0. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the Agency’s work on the statewide seismic needs assessment of Oregon publiceducation and emergency services buildings, as directed by the legislative assembly in 2005.
This assessment is one step in a process aimed at improving the life safety of Oregonians from the risksassociated with earthquakes. The awareness of earthquake hazards in Oregon increased significantly as theUnited States Geological Survey commenced detailed investigations into the field evidence of “Great
Earthquakes” in the geological record along the Pacific Northwest coast, commencing in 1986. DOGAMIalso began mapping earthquake hazards in the Portland area in 1987.
Work by the USGS, and many others, has pieced together very compelling evidence that the CascadiaSubduction Zone has ruptured 13 times during the past 7,600 years, most recently at 9pm, local time, onTuesday, January 26, 1700. In addition, shallow earthquakes in the Scott Mills and Klamath Falls areasduring 1993 remind us all that it is not just the risks of “the big one” that we need to mitigate.
Today, the statewide building code and engineering design take into account the significant lateral forcesassociated with earthquakes. However, buildings constructed in Oregon prior to the 1990’s were built tolower standards and are especially at risk of collapse and other forms of structural failure during anearthquake.
An integral piece of this assessment makes use of a federal technique known as FEMA 154 (AppendixL), the rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards, to identify, inventory, and rank
buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous. Five key parameters determine the relative seismic risk of a building:
1. Seismicity Zone at that location (how hard the ground is expected to shake during the maximumconsidered earthquake)
2. Building Structural Type being considered (one or more of 15 different combinations of buildingsconstructed from wood, steel, concrete and masonry using moment frame, shear wall or bracinglateral force-resisting systems)
3. Building Irregularities a building may have (especially tall, oddly shaped, or built on slopedground)
4. Original Construction Date (as opposed to expansion or modification, although seismicrehabilitation work is noted), and
5. Soil Type (softer soils cannot transmit seismic shear waves as efficiently as rock, so the amplitude,
or size, of the shear waves and ground motion will increase)This screening technique is particularly useful to characterize the relative seismic risk within the universe
of buildings being considered, but it is not an absolute measure for any one building of where and howstructural failure will occur. That requires a full structural analysis. The FEMA 154 results are reported as aprobability that the building will collapse if ground motions occur that are equal to or exceed the maximumconsidered earthquake. These estimates are based upon limited observed and analytical data, and theprobability of collapse is therefore approximate. A score of 2.0 implies there is a chance of 1 in 10 2, or 1 in100, that the building will collapse.
A score of 0.0 implies a chance of 1 in 100, or 1 in 1. It is important to recognize that this estimate doesnot directly indicate that catastrophic building collapse will definitively occur. Different building types of varying vintage, shape and design will fail in different ways. More detailed structural investigation byqualified and experienced engineers is required to fully assess the seismic risks and rehabilitation issues of
any one building.Many districts in Oregon are well along in this process, and their data will exceed the accuracy of this
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 2
Figure 2. The 2001 Nisqually (M6.8) and 1994 Northridge (M6.7)earthquakes provide an interesting example of how distance from anearthquake affects the level of shaking experienced. Even though the
Nisqually earthquake was slightly larger than the Northridge earthquakeon the magnitude scale, the resulting damage was far less. One reason is
that the section of the fault that moved was much deeper than the faultthat moved in the Northridge earthquake. Therefore every house was at
least 50 km (30 miles) away from the fault.(http://www.earthquakecountry.info).
Figure 1. Types of earthquakes that affect Oregon (U.S. Geological Survey).
1.1. Earthquake Geology of Oregon
The constant motion of the earth’s tectonicplates cause three different earthquakesources that threaten communities inOregon (Figure 1).
Crustal Earthquakes occur along
faults at shallow depths of 6-12 milesbelow the surface. The two largestearthquakes in recent years in Oregon,Scotts Mills (magnitude 5.6) and theKlamath Falls (magnitude 6.0) of 1993were crustal earthquakes. The 1994Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7) insouthern California was a crustalearthquake.
Subduction Zone Earthquakes occuraround the world where the tectonic platesthat make up the surface of the earth
collide. When these plates collide, oneplate is forced under the other, where it isre-absorbed into the mantle of the earthand ultimately causes volcanic activity atthe surface, such as along the Cascadesrange. This dipping interface between thetwo plates is the site of some of the most
powerful earthquakes ever recorded. The 1960Chilean (magnitude 9.5), 1964 Alaska(magnitude 9.2), and 2004 Sumatra(magnitude 9.1) earthquakes were of this type.
These earthquakes occur at intervals of about300 to 1,000 years along the CascadiaSubduction Zone, situated immediately off theOregon coast.
Deep Intraplate Earthquakes occurwithin the remains of the ocean floor that isbeing subducted beneath North America atdepths of 25-37 miles. Intraplate earthquakescaused damage in the Puget Sound region in1949, in 1965, and on February 28, 2001, nearNisqually (magnitude 6.8).
A primary reason earthquakes of similar
magnitude can cause highly varied damage onthe earth’s surface is the varying depths atwhich earthquakes originate.
For example, the Northridge andNisqually earthquakes were of very similarmagnitude, but Northridge occurred at a muchshallower depth that resulted in far greaterdamage to structures (Figure 2).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 3
1.2. Seismic Hazard in Oregon
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides seismic hazard assessments. USGS National Hazard Mapsshow the distribution of earthquake shaking levels that have a certain probability of occurring in the UnitedStates (Figure 3). These hazard maps provide the most accurate and detailed information possible to assistengineers in designing buildings, bridges, highways, and utilities that will withstand shaking fromearthquakes in the United States. These maps are used to create and update the building codes that are now
used by more than 20,000 cities, counties, and local governments, including Oregon, to help establishconstruction requirements necessary to preserve public safety.
Figure 3. National Hazard Map shows the probability of earthquake shaking. Blue indicates lowest probability, and brownindicates highest probability (USGS).
The detailed view of Oregon (Figure 4) illustrates the ground motion due to the maximum considered
earthquakes predicted to occur within a 2,500 year period. [Note: the reason peak acceleration as a percent of gravity is mapped is that the resultant force on an object is equal to its mass times acceleration; objectsneed to withstand both vertical and horizontal forces; earthquakes and wind storms are the main sources of lateral forces to be resisted.]
Figure 4. Detail of USGS hazard mapfrom Figure 3 showing probability of
ground shaking in Oregon due toseismic activity (USGS).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 4
Figure 5. Earthquake ground motion amplification in southern California.Shaking was much greater on landfill or soft soil (USGS).
It is important to note that the hazard map (Figure 4) portrays anticipated acceleration in bedrock.Various soil types have characteristics that can amplify ground motion. Passing from rock to soil, seismicwaves slow down but get bigger. Hence a soft, loose soil may shake more intensely than hard rock at thesame distance from the same earthquake. For example, shaking from an earthquake in Southern Californiacan be 5 or more times greater at a site in the Los Angeles basin than the level of shaking in the nearby
mountains (Figure 5).An extreme example of this for this
type of amplification was in the Marinadistrict of San Francisco during the 1989Loma Prieta earthquake. That earthquakewas 60 miles south of San Francisco. Mostof the Bay Area escaped serious damage.However, some sites in the Bay Area onlandfill or soft soil experienced significantshaking and damage. This amplifiedshaking was one of the reasons for thecollapse of the elevated Nimitz freeway inOakland. Ground motion at these sites wasmore than 10 times stronger than at
neighboring sites on rock.
In Oregon a similarsituation exists.In the Portland-Beaverton metro area,in the Willamette
Valley, along thecoast, and in south-central Oregon avariety of soils affectseismic waveamplification (Figure6). The manner inwhich we capturedthis critical soil-typedetermination isdescribed insection 3.3.
Figure 6. Universal Building Code soil types in Oregon (DOGAMI).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 5
1.3. Scope of Earthquake Hazard and Anticipated Monetary Losses in Oregon
To understand potential losses fromfuture disasters, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)developed a software program calledHAZUS.
This program combines informationabout expected shaking, building typesand locations, population, and otherfactors to calculate the severity of damage that an earthquake may cause aswell as resulting costs.
Figure 7 shows expected losses eachyear for counties in the United States,averaged over many years. Theexpected annual loss due to earthquakestotals $5.3 billion, with 77% of the totalforecast for the west coast.
Oregon has several counties in thehighest expected loss category.
Figure 7. Potential annual earthquake losses in millions of dollarsby county due to seismic hazard (FEMA).
The original legislation was concerned with the relative seismic safety of the building stock of Oregonuniversities, community colleges, public schools, hospitals, and fire and police stations. As defined by thelegislative instructions, the replacement value of these qualifying buildings is about $23.5 billion (Table 1).
Table 1. Replacement Value of Qualifying Building Stock in Oregon*
#
Ave.
sq ft
Total
sq ft
Cost/
sq ft
Replacement
Cost %Education Facilities Oregon University System (est. 87% qualifying) 18,000,000 $165 $2,970,000,000 22%Community College Buildings 184 39,758 7,315,472 $125 $914,434,000 7%Public schools (K-12) 1,101 70,511 77,632,611 $125 $9,704,076,375 71%
SUM EDUCATION 102,948,083 $13,588,510,375Emergency Facilities City Fire Departments 197 8,151 1,605,747Rural Fire Protection Districts 375 8,883 3,331,125Port of Portland Fire 1 8,500 8,500
SUM Fire 573 4,945,372 $115 $568,717,780 6%City Police 107 9,065 969,955County Sheriff 65 23,716 1,541,540Oregon State Police 26 10,436 271,336
SUM Police 198 2,782,831 $100 $278,283,100 3%Acute Care Hospitals 58 353,828 20,522,024 $450 $9,234,910,800 92%
SUM EMERGENCY 28,250,227 $10,081,911,680
*Data compiled by DOGAMI for this study.
Table 1 shows that K-12 schools dominate education facilities’ value, whereas acute care hospitalsappear to dwarf the replacement cost of all fire and police stations in Oregon. [Note: Ownership of the majorityof hospitals is materially different from the other district buildings under consideration for seismic rehabilitation;
further, a $2.2 billion Oregon hospital construction boom is underway, with over half of acute care facilities buildingnew emergency facilities.]
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 6
1.4. Building Codes, Structural Engineering Design, and Buildings in Oregon
The purpose of a building code is to establish minimum requirements necessary to protect public health,safety, and welfare in the built environment. Model building codes provide protection from tragedy causedby fire, structural collapse, and general deterioration. Safe buildings are achieved through proper design andconstruction practices in concert with a code administration program that ensures compliance.
A model code has no legal standing until it is adopted by a legislative body (state legislature, county
board, city council, etc.). When adopted as law, all owners of property within the boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction are required to comply with the referred codes. The primary application of a building code is toregulate new construction. Building codes usually apply to an existing building only if the buildingundergoes reconstruction, rehabilitation, or alteration.
Since the early 1900s, the system of building regulations in the United States was based on modelbuilding codes developed by three regional model code groups:
• East and Midwest: Building Officials Code Administrators International (BOCA NationalBuilding Code)
• Southeast: Southern Building Code Conference International (SCCCI Standard Building Code)
• West Coast: International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO Uniform Building Code)The three code groups decided to combine their efforts in 1994 to form the International Code Council.
The first edition of the International Building Code was published in 1997 and is published every three years.
Each cycle of the building code has changes that reflect engineering solutions to lateral force designproblems encountered, including from the damage caused by major earthquakes in California in 1906, 1925,1933, 1940, 1971, 1989, and 1994 (Figure 8).
Oregon’s major cities adopted model codes in the late 1920s, and the state adopted codes in 1973.
Figure 8. Important seismic code events and code developments (DOGAMI, after Structural Engineers Association of California).
Important Se ismic Code Events & Code Developments
Date Location Item Relavent Lateral Force Design Issues:
<1906 San Francisco EQ Buildings with provisions made for wind forces as high as 30 lbs/sq ft resisted 1906 EQ
1906 San Francisco Code Introduced Buildings over 100' high or a height 3x horizontal dimension has steel frame designed to resist 15 lbs/sq ft
1910 San Francisco Concrete frame Concrete frame included with steel frame; wind factor raised to 20 lbs/sq ft
1923 Japan EQ Three major bui ldings, stat ical ly designed for lateral forces of 10% gravity showed marked resistant behavior
1925 Santa Barbara EQ Heavy building damage causes widespread demand for EQ insurance; need for state code realized
1926 San Franc isco Wind fac tor reduced to 15 lbs /sq ft; remained here unt il 1947
1927 Palo Alto 1st U.B.C. UBC incorporates lateral force requirments; seismic force equals mass x acceleration
1927 Oregon Portland, Eugene and Salem adopt 1927 UBC1930 1930 UBC Strict s pecific at ions for mortar and workmans hip on mas onry buildings
1933 Long Beach EQ 86% of all URM & 75% of schools heavily damaged, proves unreinforced mortar unstable; Field & Riley Acts
1935 1935 UBC Includes map showing "zones of approximate equal seis mic probability"
1940 El Centro Accelerograms Starts new era in seismic codes tending toward a more dynamic approach
1946 Oregon Medford adopts 1946 UBC; however first building code was in 1924
1949 1949 UBC First published national seismic hazard map (wes tern Oregon is zone 2; central/SE are zone 1)
1949 Oregon Corvallis adopts 1949 UBC; other codes predate
1951 San Francisco ASCE Report Report of work began in '48 on Lateral Forces published; became basis for many EQ codes
1955 Oregon Beaverton adopts 1955 UBC
1960 California SEAOC 1957-1959: Detailed studies and anaylses completed; minimum standards to assure public safety
1960 USA Estimated 60% of American municipalities had adopted one of model codes
1961 California 1961 UBC Adopts SEAOC Code
1964 Alaska EQ Widespread ground failures , 75 houses in one area des troyed, li quefact ion recognized
1964 Niigata, Japan EQ 3,000 houses destroyed; infamous leaning apartment building from liquefaction
1967 SEAOC Requirement for shear walls and brac ed frames and for reinforc ed concrete buildings
1971 San Fernando EQ Much non-ductile reinforced concrete damage; Applied Technology Council (ATC) formed
1974 Oregon Statewide Oregon adopts 1973 UBC and Oregon Structural Specialty Code on July 1 19741976 1976 UBC New seis mic provis ions int roduced; adopt ed in Oregon by OSSC on March 1 1978
1985 Mexico City EQ Lake sediments amplify damage; damage from pounding; 6-15 story buildings collapse at intermediate floors
1989 Loma Prieta EQ Extensive transportation infrastructure damage from soft soi l ground motion amplification;
1994 Northridge EQ 25,000 dwellings & 9 hospitals c losed; $44 bill ion; Learn about soft stories
1995 Kobe EQ 192,000 buildings des troy ed; $200 billion; tall buildings collaps e at 5th floor
2001 Nisqually EQ Deep, "normal" fault event causes much less damage than shallow "thrust" fault of similar energy
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 7
Despite having adopted building codes, Oregon was designated a low seismic hazard region until theramifications of the Cascadia Subduction Zone were recognized between 1986 and 1993 (also see Figure 9).
Figure 9. As recently as 1988 Oregon wascategorized as a region of low seismic hazard.
Discovery of the Cascadia Subduction Zone(darker red area offshore Oregon andWashington) caused western Oregon to bereclassified as an area of higher seismichazard (USGS).
Because structural building codes reflect the lateral forces anticipated within a specific seismicity region,much construction in Oregon for certain building materials and lateral force systems before 1994 waseffectively under-designed. [Note: An exception is wood-frame construction. The most important codechanges for wood frame were incorporated in the 1976 Uniform Building Code, adopted 1978, and werelargely independent of seismic zone designation.]
Oregon public school district voters approved bonds totaling $3.7 billion during 1997–2006 to build 135new schools and make additions and renovations to many more. However, the majority of the 1,101 K-12schools being assessed were built in the 1945–1975 period, before either seismic zones or building codeswere updated (Figure 10). By comparison, 44 of the 184 community college buildings assessed were builtduring 1994–2006. In contrast, fire and police station median age is about 32 years old. Generally beingmuch smaller, simpler structures, these emergency facilities will not have the degree of risk for collapse dueto earthquakes as will the K-12 buildings.
Figure 10. Construction dates for Oregon education and emergency facilities.
71st Legislative Assembly 2001: Senate Bills 14 and 15, enacted in 2001, stated that subject to the provision of funding by the StateDepartment of Geology & Mineral Industries, the following Boards and Divisions shall provide for seismicsafety surveys in accordance with FEMA-154 (1988):
• (SB 14, 2001) State Board of Higher Education: Buildings with capacity of 250 or more and are
routinely used for student activities by public institutions or departments; excludes OHSU.• (SB 14, 2001) State Board of Education: buildings with capacity of 250 or more and are routinely
used for student activities by kindergarten through grade 12 public schools, community colleges andeducation service districts.
• (SB 14, 2001) Subject to available funding, the relevant education boards shall develop a plan forseismic rehabilitation of buildings that pose an undue life safety risk, or other actions to reduce therisk, and complete those plans and actions by January 1, 2032.
• (SB15, 2001) Health Division: Hospital buildings that contain an acute care inpatient care facility, asthat term is given in ORS 442.470; includes OHSU.
• (SB 15, 2001) Department of Geology & Mineral Industries: Fire stations, police stations, sheriff’soffices and similar facilities used by state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies.
• (SB15, 2001) Subject to available funding, the relevant facility, department, district or agency shalldevelop a plan for seismic rehabilitation of buildings that pose an undue life safety risk, or otheractions to reduce the risk, and complete those plans and actions by January 1, 2022.
• (SB 14 & 15, 2001) If building is listed on a national or state register of historic places or properties,the rehabilitation plan or actions shall give consideration to preserving the character of the building.
Senate Bills 14 and 15, 2001, are codified in the Building Code as Oregon Revised Statute 455.390-455.400 (2005 edition).
General Election 2002: During the November 5, 2002 general election, Oregon voters were asked via Ballot Measures 15 & 16whether or not to amend the State Constitution to authorize the State to issue General Obligation Bonds forseismic rehabilitation of public education and emergency services buildings, respectively. Measure 15 passed671,640 – 535,638 and Measure 16 passed 669,451 – 530,587. The Oregon Constitution (2005 version) now
includes Article XI-M and XI-N bonds, respectively. (The text of Articles XI-M and XI-N is provided belowon pages 10–12.)
73rd Legislative Assembly 2005: Senate Bills 2 through 5, enacted in 2005, further refined the seismic assessment and rehabilitation fundingprioritization process:
• SB 2, 2005: directed the Department of Geology & Mineral Industries to develop a statewide seismicneeds assessment of public education and emergency services facility buildings.
• SB 3, 2005: directed the Office of Emergency Management to develop a grant program and appoint agrant committee to review applications and make determinations for the disbursement of funds forthe seismic rehabilitation of these buildings.
• SB 4, 2005: established the Education Seismic Fund in the State Treasury to deposit the proceeds of Article XI-M bonds and other amounts appropriated or otherwise provided by the Legislative
Assembly.• SB 5, 2005: established the Emergency Services Seismic Fund in the State Treasury to deposit the
proceeds of Article XI-N bonds and other amounts appropriated or otherwise provided by theLegislative Assembly.
A flow chart of the seismic needs assessment and rehabilitation process follows (Figure 11). [Note: At thetime of drafting this report the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Committee had not been appointed; therefore the method
for making a seismic rehabilitation grant application, eligibility requirements, scoring system, matching fund requirement, or the structural versus non-structural building elements rules had not been discussed nor determined.]
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 9
Oregon Senate Bills 2,3,4,5 (2005) Flow Cha rt
SB 2STATEWIDE SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT
July 2005-June 2007Department of Geology Adm inisters
SB 3SEISMIC REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAMS
July 2007-Offic e o f Emergenc y Ma nage ment Ad ministers
SB 4SEISMIC REHABILITATION
Artic le XI-M BondsPublic Education Buildings
July 2007 – Jan 2032State Treasurer/DAS
SB 5SEISMIC REHABILITATION Artic le
XI-N BondsEmergency Servic es Building s
July 2007 – Jan 2022State Trea surer/ DAS
1/ 5 OF 1% OF TRUEMARKET VALUE OFPROPERTY IN STATE
[’05-’06: Approx $725M]
Director App oints Grant Com mittee That:• Determines Form and Method o f App lying For Grants
• Determines Eligib ility Req uirements For Grant Ap plic ants• Determine s Fund ing Sc oring System Direc tly Rela ted To Seismic Needs Assessme nt
Ad ditiona lly, The Grant Proc ess Ma y:• Req uire Applic ant Ma tching Funds
• Provide Authority To Waive Requireme nts Based on Spec ial Circum stanc es•
Provid e Sepa rate Rules For Fundin g Structura l and Non-Structura l Building Elements
OEM Then Requests Financ ing Of All Or A Portion Of State Share Of Costs
Develop a Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Of:• Building s With Capa c ity of 250 Or More And Routinely Used For Student Ac tivities
By K-12, Com munity Co lleges and ESDs• Hospita l Building s That Conta in An Ac ute Ca re Fac ility
• Fire Stations• Polic e Statio ns, Sheriffs’ Office s and Similar Fac ilities Used By State , County, Distric t
and Munic ipal Law Enforce ment Ag enc ies
The Assessment Sha ll Consist of Sc reenings, Ranking Of Sc reening Results &Developme nt of GIS Databa ses Of Survey Data
1/ 5 OF 1% OF TRUEMARKET VALUE OFPROPERTY IN STATE
[’05-’06: Approx $725M]
Figure 11. Flow chart of the seismic needs assessment and rehabilitation process. Note that the $1.45 billion infunds is a technical calculation of a maximum value; the State Debt Policy Advisory Commission issued a report
in April of 2006 that recommended total Oregon General Fund debt capacity of $1.05 bill ion and Lottery Funddebt capacity at $746 million for the next two biennia.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 10
Article XI-N[Blue Book; Constitution of Oregon, 2005 version]
SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION BUILDINGS Sec. 1. State empowered to lend credit for seismic rehabilitation of public education buildings
2. Sources of repayment
3. Refunding bonds4. Legislation to effectuate Article5. Relationship to conflicting provisions of Constitution
Note: Article XI-M was designated as “Article XI-L” by S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov.5, 2002. Section 1. State empowered to lend credit for seismic rehabilitation of public education buildings;bonds. (1) In the manner provided by law and notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 7, ArticleXI of this Constitution, the credit of the State of Oregon may be loaned and indebtedness incurred, in anaggregate outstanding principal amount not to exceed, at any one time, one-fifth of one percent of the realmarket value of all property in the state, to provide funds for the planning and implementation of seismicrehabilitation of public education buildings, including surveying and conducting engineering evaluations ofthe need for seismic rehabilitation.
(2) Any indebtedness incurred under this section must be in the form of general obligation bonds ofthe State of Oregon containing a direct promise on behalf of the State of Oregon to pay the principal,
premium, if any, interest and other amounts payable with respect to the bonds, in an aggregate outstandingprincipal amount not to exceed the amount authorized in subsection (1) of this section. The bonds are thedirect obligation of the State of Oregon and must be in a form, run for a period of time, have terms and bearrates of interest as may be provided by statute. The full faith and credit and taxing power of the State ofOregon must be pledged to the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the generalobligation bonds; however, the ad valorem taxing power of the State of Oregon may not be pledged to thepayment of the bonds issued under this section.
(3) As used in this section, “public education building” means a building owned by the State Board ofHigher Education, a school district, an education service district, a community college district or a communitycollege service district. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002] Section 2. Sources of repayment. The principal, premium, if any, interest and other amounts payable withrespect to the general obligation bonds issued under section 1 of this Article must be repaid as determinedby the Legislative Assembly from the following sources:
(1) Amounts appropriated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from the General Fund,including taxes, other than ad valorem property taxes, levied to pay the bonds;
(2) Amounts allocated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from the proceeds of the StateLottery or from the Master Settlement Agreement entered into on November 23, 1998, by the State ofOregon and leading United States tobacco product manufacturers; and
(3) Amounts appropriated or allocated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from othersources of revenue. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002] Section 3. Refunding bonds. General obligation bonds issued under section 1 of this Article may berefunded with bonds of like obligation. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5,2002] Section 4. Legislation to effectuate Article. The Legislative Assembly may enact legislation to carry outthe provisions of this Article. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002] Section 5. Relationship to conflicting provisions of Constitution. This Article supersedes conflicting
provisions of this Constitution. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002]
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 11
Article XI-N[Blue Book; Constitution of Oregon, 2005 version]
SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES BUILDINGSSec. 1. State empowered to lend credit for seismic rehabilitation of emergency services buildings; bonds
2. Sources of repayment3. Refunding bonds4. Legislation to effectuate Article5. Relationship to conflicting provisions of Constitution
Note: Article XI-N was designated as “Article XI-L” by S.J.R. 22, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov.5, 2002.
Section 1. State empowered to lend credit for seismic rehabilitation of emergency servicesbuildings; bonds. (1) In the manner provided by law and notwithstanding the limitations contained in section7, Article XI of this Constitution, the credit of the State of Oregon may be loaned and indebtedness incurred,in an aggregate outstanding principal amount not to exceed, at any one time, one-fifth of one percent of thereal market value of all property in the state, to provide funds for the planning and implementation of seismicrehabilitation of emergency services buildings, including surveying and conducting engineering evaluationsof the need for seismic rehabilitation.
(2) Any indebtedness incurred under this section must be in the form of general obligation bonds ofthe State of Oregon containing a direct promise on behalf of the State of Oregon to pay the principal,
premium, if any, interest and other amounts payable with respect to the bonds, in an aggregate outstandingprincipal amount not to exceed the amount authorized in subsection (1) of this section. The bonds are thedirect obligation of the State of Oregon and must be in a form, run for a period of time, have terms and bearrates of interest as may be provided by statute. The full faith and credit and taxing power of the State ofOregon must be pledged to the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the generalobligation bonds; however, the ad valorem taxing power of the State of Oregon may not be pledged to thepayment of the bonds issued under this section.
(3) As used in this section:(a) “Acute inpatient care facility” means a licensed hospital with an organized medical staff, with
permanent facilities that include inpatient beds, and with comprehensive medical services, includingphysician services and continuous nursing services under the supervision of registered nurses, to providediagnosis and medical or surgical treatment primarily for but not limited to acutely ill patients and accidentvictims. “Acute inpatient care facility” includes the Oregon Health and Science University.
(b) “Emergency services building” means a public building used for fire protection services, a hospitalbuilding that contains an acute inpatient care facility, a police station, a sheriff’s office or a similar facilityused by a state, county, district or municipal law enforcement agency. [Created through S.J.R. 22, 2001, andadopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002]
Section 2. Sources of repayment. The principal, premium, if any, interest and other amountspayable with respect to the general obligation bonds issued under section 1 of this Article must be repaid asdetermined by the Legislative Assembly from the following sources:
(1) Amounts appropriated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from the General Fund,including taxes, other than ad valorem property taxes, levied to pay the
(2) Amounts allocated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from the proceeds of the StateLottery or from the Master Settlement Agreement entered into on November 23, 1998, by the State ofOregon and leading United States tobacco product manufacturers; and
(3) Amounts appropriated or allocated for the purpose by the Legislative Assembly from other
sources of revenue. [Created through S.J.R. 22, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 2002]Section 3. Refunding bonds. General obligation bonds issued under section 1 of this Article maybe refunded with bonds of like obligation. [Created through S.J.R. 22, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov.5, 2002]
Section 4. Legislation to effectuate Article. The Legislative Assembly may enact legislation tocarry out the provisions of this Article. [Created through S.J.R. 22, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov. 5,2002]
Section 5. Relationship to conflicting provisions of Constitution. This Article supersedesconflicting provisions of this Constitution. [Created through S.J.R. 21, 2001, and adopted by the people Nov.5, 2002]
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 12
The key directives to DOGAMI to conduct the seismic needs assessment were [excerpted from the text
of Senate Bill 2, 2005 (emphasis added)]:
SECTION 1:(1) The State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries [in consultation with the Seismic Safety Policy
Advisory Commission, the Office of Emergency Management, the Department of Human Services, the
State Board of Education, the State Board of Higher Education] and any grant committee establishedpursuant to a statewide grant program for seismic rehabilitation, shall develop a statewide seismic needsassessment that includes seismic safety surveys of:(a) Buildings that have a capacity of 250 or more persons and are routinely used for student activities by
kindergarten through grade 12 public schools, community colleges and education service districts;(b) Hospital buildings that contain an acute inpatient care facility;(c) Fire stations; and(d) Police stations, sheriffs' offices and similar facilities used by state, county, district and municipal law
enforcement agencies.(2) The statewide seismic needs assessment shall consist of:
(a) Rapid visual screenings of the buildings specified in this section, conducted in accordance with thestandards for rapid visual screening procedures established in 'Rapid Visual Screening of Buildingsfor Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook,' FEMA-154, 2002 Edition, or an equivalent standardadopted by the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries;
(b) The ranking of the rapid visual screening results in risk categories based on• need,• importance of the building to the community,• risk to the building posed by its location,• risk posed to the community by the collapse of the building during a seismic event,• projected cost of the necessary seismic rehabilitation• other categories determined necessary by the State Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries;(c) The development of geographic information system (GIS) databases of survey data and the sharing
of that data with interested parties.(3) The statewide seismic needs assessment may include:
(a) Rapid visual screenings conducted by entities or persons other than the State Department of Geologyand Mineral Industries;
(b) Questionnaires or other information gathering techniques to supplement the rapid visual screeningand aid in the ranking of rapid visual screening results in risk categories; and
(c) Training for persons interested in conducting rapid visual screenings.
SECTION 2:The statewide seismic needs assessment specified in section 1 of this 2005 Act shall be completed by July1, 2007.
•Matching Funds Required/Available?•30-Year Use Demonstrated?
Yes
No
High Risk & High Need
Low Need Low Risk
Oregon University
System
Figure 12. DOGAMI’s process to fulfill legislative directives to conduct seismic needs assessment of public educationbuildings. A similar process was used to assess emergency response facilities.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 14
2.0. DEFINING THE UNIVERSE FOR SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2.1: Qualifying Buildings: K-12 Public Schools and Education Service Districts (ESD)
In the absence of a data set containing capacity information, DOGAMI used the Oregon Department of Education’s 2005-06 schools enrollment database to determine the qualifying schools sites. Initially, weselected an enrollment of 200 as the cutoff; we then increased the number of schools assessed by employing
two additional rules:• at least 90% of each county’s enrolled students must be included
• 100% of public schools potentially at risk of tsunami inundation must be includedThe effect of these criteria is summarized in Table 2 (see Appendix A for detailed listing). All 1,030
schools in the state with an enrollment of 154 or higher, along with 71 schools with enrollments ranging from8 to 153, were included. The process resulted in the inclusion of nearly 97% of all enrolled K-12 students.
Table 2. Oregon Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment: DOGAMI's Qualifying Public K-12 Schools andEducation Service Districts
n is number of students enrolled; DNQ indicates do not qualify.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 15
An example of how each K-12 school in each school district in each county was determined to qualify ornot qualify for inclusion in this assessment is illustrated in Figure 13. Baker County was selected for displaysimply due to its manageable size for presentation purposes.
1. Identify all public K-12 school districtsand schools in county (table below)
⇒ Baker County has 4 districts and 13 K-12 schools(2,356 enrolled in ’05-’06).
2. Automatically include schools with>200 students enrolled (table rowswith white background)
⇒ Automatically include 5 of the 13 Baker County schools(1,894 students = 80.4%)
3. DOGAMI rule: Include 90% ofenrolled students in each county(table rows with green background)
⇒ Include an additional 5 schools (adds 405 students; countynow has 97.6% included)
Figure 13. Steps followed to determine qualifying K-12 sites in Baker County. DNQ indicates schools that do not qualify.
An additional note to the example is that if more than one school of very similar enrollment were situatedat the threshold of achieving the 90%-per-county rule, those schools were included. (In this case the schoolswith 75 and 74 students are highlighted in red.)
In summary, 171 school districts had at least one school included; 39 school districts had no schoolsincluded. Only one Education Service District (ESD) school was included. Three schools administered by theDepartment of Education were included.
Efforts were made to include smaller schools identified as being on adjoining properties.
District administration office buildings were excluded if they were situated separately from a school.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 16
Table 3. Qualifying Community College District Buildings
CC Campus # All Bldg # Qual Bldg
Blue Mountain 10 6
Blue Mountain Branch 4 -
Central Oregon 22 13
Central Oregon-Redmond 3 3
Chemeketa 52 12
Chemeketa Branch 11 4
Clackamas 25 17
Clatsop 9 6
Columbia Gorge 12 2
Klamath 5 2
Lane 34 18
Lane-Branch 17 4
Linn-Benton 14 12
Linn-Benton Branch 4 3
Mt Hood 15 11 Oregon Coast 1 -
Portland-Cascade 12 10
Portland-Sylvania 12 11
Portland-Rock Creek 13 7
Rogue-Redwood 33 5
Rogue-Riverside 9 5
Rogue-Table Rock 3 3
Southwest Oregon 39 10
Tillamook Bay 3 -
Treasure Valley 18 7
Umpqua 15 8
395 179
2.2. Qualifying Buildings: Community College District Buildings
DOGAMI has previously worked with Oregoncommunity colleges to assess seismic risk withintheir districts; that work was augmented by thisproject.
For community colleges, rather than usingenrollment data we used known capacity orcapacity estimates, based upon each building’sgross square footage, to establish which of the 17district’s 395 buildings would qualify forinclusion.
Buildings not routinely used for studentactivities, small buildings, and modular unitswere excluded.
179 buildings were deemed to qualify forinclusion (Table 3; see Appendix B for detailedlisting). These buildings range in size from 8,472
to 421,365 square feet. 48 of these had not beenscreened by the earlier work. An additional 42buildings that had been screened earlier wereexcluded from this study due to their capacitybeing below 250 or not being in regular use bystudents.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 17
2.3. Qualifying Buildings: Hospitals
Acute inpatient care facilities (hospitals) are defined in ORS 442.470:(1) "Acute inpatient care facility" means a licensed hospital with an organized medical staff, with
permanent facilities that include inpatient beds, and with comprehensive medical services, including physician services and continuous nursing services under the supervision of registered nurses, to providediagnosis and medical or surgical treatment primarily for but not limited to acutely ill patients and accident
victims.The Oregon Department of Health Services provided the list of 58 acute care hospitals, as shown Table
4. (Note: Tuality Healthcare reports results as a singular entity but operates hospitals in both Hillsboro and Forest Grove.)
For the purposes of this assessment all 58 facilities were deemed to qualify for inclusion. However,hospitals have very significant dissimilarities with the other public district-owned facilities included in thisassessment. Specifically, this list of hospitals:
• includes hospitals ranging in size from 12-bed facilities with less than $5 million in gross annualrevenue to 447-bed facilities with $1 billion in annual revenues
• includes 2 hospitals owned by a stock exchange listed, for-profit, corporation
• includes 22 hospitals owned by faith-based organizations with local to international scope
• includes 1 hospital owned and operated by the nation’s largest HMO
• includes 11 hospitals that use public health district tax levies to contribute to revenueIt was noted in the minutes of the March 22, 2001, Senate Committee on General Government and
Transportation that the intent of this assessment is to focus on emergency room facilities at hospitals thatwould serve victims of earthquakes, as opposed to those areas that handle existing or long-term patient care:
• 22 of the 58 hospitals have built or are building new emergency room facilities
• another 10 have completed major upgrades or expansion to existing facilities
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 18
Table 4a. Oregon Department of Human Services 2003 Patient and Revenue Data
ER Federal Hospital 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003
Acute Care Hospitals Oregon Year Medicare System Staffed # Inpatient Acute Outpatient Gross
Name City Built Status Status # Beds Discharges Inpat. Days # Visits Rev $M
Adventist Medical Center Portland 1977 DRG System 225 11,474 48,763 318,384 334.6$
Tillamook County General Hospital Tillamook 1950 Rural A System 30 1,373 4,216 36,549 47.0$
Rogue Valley Medical Center Medford 2006 DRG System 276 15,583 64,324 433,685 342.0$
Three Rivers Community Hospital Grants Pass 2001 DRG System 98 8,473 26,598 246,375 145.5$
St. Charles Medical Center Bend 2006 DRG System 172 13,811 53,707 146,833 280.4$St. Charles Medical Center Redmond 2006 Rural B System 48 2,661 6,979 41,972 38.2$
Holy Rosary Medical Center Ontario 2002 Rural A System 55 4,254 11,693 56,840 71.7$
Mercy Medical Center Roseburg 2006 DRG System 149 10,564 39,917 215,775 219.3$
St. Anthony Hospital Pendleton 2006 Rural A System 49 2,266 6,651 28,803 43.5$
St. Elizabeth Hospital Baker City 1987 Rural A System 31 1,255 3,959 28,865 31.2$
Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center Clackamas 2007 DRG System 183 14,238 51,055 90,589 NA
Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital Portland 1902 DRG System 275 14,272 61,318 206,183 344.7$
Legacy Meridian Park Hospital Tualatin 1973 DRG System 133 8,705 27,619 121,836 159.4$
Legacy Mt. Hood Medical Center Gresham 1983 DRG System 63 5,345 16,458 90,482 87.7$
Salem Hospital Salem 2008 DRG System 385 20,551 89,273 395,659 383.3$
West Valley Community Hospital Dallas 1972 Rural B System 14 217 616 46,359 13.2$
Cottage Grove Community Hos pital Cottage Grove 2003 Rural B Sys tem 12 28,315 9.1$
Peace Harbor Hospital Florence 1989 Rural B System 21 1,268 3,818 37,465 40.8$
Sacred Heart Medical Center Eugene 2008 DRG System 395 27,529 111,956 140,634 506.4$
Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital Hood River 1988 Rural B System 31 1,759 4,292 81,627 54.3$Providence Medford Medical Center Medford 2005 DRG System 124 6,762 27,747 318,318 187.8$
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 19
Table 4b. Parent Organization and Scale of Revenues
Given that 33 of the 58 hospitals have new or recently renovated emergency room facilities, the potentialscope of relative seismic risk for hospitals in Oregon is diminished significantly.
Also, provided that 10 of the 11 Oregon Health District hospitals have annual revenues less than $25million, the relative need for state-level public financing of seismic rehabilitation of acute care hospitals maynot be capital intensive.
Acute Care Hospitals Acute Care Hospitals
Name District_Name Fiscal Need-Related IssuesAdventist Medical Center Adventist Health System NFP West coast faith-based ('05: $1.7B revenues)
Tillamook County General Hospital Adventist Health System NFP West coast faith-based ('05: $1.7B revenues)
Rogue Valley Medical Center Asante Health System NFP Medford-Grants Pass community-based NFP ('05: $0.7B rev)Three Rivers Community Hospital Asante Health System NFP Medford-Grants Pass community-based NFP ('05: $0.7B rev)
St. Charles Medical Center Cascade Healthcare Community Inc, private NFP Bend-Redmond community-based NFP ('05: $0.5B revenues)
St. Charles Medical Center Cascade Healthcare Community Inc, private NFP Bend-Redmond community-based NFP ('05: $0.5B revenues)Holy Rosary Medical Center Catholic Health Initiatives NFP National faith-based ('06: $7.7B revenues)
Mercy Medical Center Catholic Health Initiatives NFP National faith-based ('06: $7.7B revenues)
St. Anthony Hospital Catholic Health Initiatives NFP National faith-based ('06: $7.7B revenues)
St. Elizabeth Hospital Catholic Health Initiatives NFP National faith-based ('06: $7.7B revenues)
Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center Kaiser Foundation NFP Nation's largest HMO ('06: $34.4B revenues)
Legacy Emanuel Hospital Legacy Health System Oregon NFP with faith-based origins ('05: $1.4B revenues)
Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital Legacy Health System Oregon NFP with faith-based origins ('05: $1.4B revenues)Legacy Meridian Park Hospital Legacy Health System Oregon NFP with faith-based origins ('05: $1.4B revenues)
Legacy Mt. Hood Medical Center Legacy Health System Oregon NFP with faith-based origins ('05: $1.4B revenues)Salem Hospital Pacific Health Horizons NFP Locally controlled regional health system
West Valley Community Hospital Pacific Health Horizons NFP Locally controlled regional health system
Cottage Grove Community Hospital PeaceHealth System NFP Faith-based west coast NFP ('06: $1.0B revenues)
Peace Harbor Hospital PeaceHealth System NFP Faith-based west coast NFP ('06: $1.0B revenues)
Sacred Heart Medical Center PeaceHealth System NFP Faith-based west coast NFP ('06: $1.0B revenues)
Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital Providence Health System - Oregon NFP West coast faith-based ('05: $4.4B revenues)
Providence Medford Medical Center Providence Health System - Oregon NFP West coast fa ith-based ( '05: $4.4B revenues)
Providence Milwauk ie Hospita l Providence Hea lth Sys tem - Oregon NFP West coas t faith -based ('05 : $4.4B revenues)
Providence Newbe rg Hospital Providence Health System - Oregon NFP West coast faith-based ('05: $4.4B revenues)Providence Port land Medical Center Providence Health System - Oregon NFP West coast faith-based ( '05: $4.4B revenues)
Providence Seaside Hospital Providence Health System - Oregon NFP West coast faith-based ('05: $4.4B revenues)Prov idence St. Vincent Hospi tal Providence Hea lth Sys tem - Oregon NFP West coas t faith -based ( '05 : $4.4B revenues)
Good Samari tan Regiona l Med ical Center Samar itan Heal th Services NFP Oregon-based NFP ( '06: $0.6B revenues)Samaritan Albany General Hospital Samaritan Health Services NFP Oregon-based NFP ('06: $0.6B revenues)
Samaritan Lebanon Community Hospi tal Samaritan Heal th Services NFP Oregon-based NFP ('06: $0.6B revenues)
Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital Samaritan Health Services NFP Oregon-based NFP ('06: $0.6B revenues)Samaritan Pacific Communities Hospital Samaritan Health Services NFP Oregon-based NFP ('06: $0.6B revenues)
Mckenzie-Willamette Medical Center Triad Hospita ls Inc For Profit NYSE-l isted, for-profit; owns 53 hospitals ('06:$5 .5B rev)
Willamette Valley Medical Center Triad Hospitals Inc For Profit NYSE-listed, for-profit; owns 53 hospitals ('06:$5.5B rev)
Tuality Community Hospital Tuality Healthcare NFP Washington county-community governed NFP ('05: $256m rev)
Columbia Memorial Hospital Lutheran Affiliated NFP Lutheran-affiliated Oregon NFP; not tax supportedAshland Community Hospital NFP - Community-owned corporation Ashland-Talent area hospital ('05: $69m revenues)
Good Shepherd Community Hospital NFP - Lutheran Affiliation Hermiston area hospital; faith-based ('05: $59m revenues)Merle West Medical Center NFP - Merle West Oregon-California NFP ('05: $227m revenues)
Mid-Columbia Medical Center NFP - Mid-Columbia Oregon-based NFP ('06: $113m revenues)
Wil lamette Fal ls Hospital NFP - only Independent hospita l in Portland region Clackamas county community-based NFP ('05: $122m rev)Santiam Memorial Hospital NFP - Santiam Marion county-community governed NFP ('05: $27m rev)
Pioneer Memorial Hospital - Prineville NFP - serving residents of Crook County 2007 - exploring partnership with Cascade Healthcare
Grande Ronde Hospital NFP private community hospital Private NFP = "Oregon's most profitable hospital"
Bay Area Hospital NFP Supported by Bay Area Hospital District Oregon Health District
Blue Mountain Hospital NFP Supported by Blue Mtn Hospital District Oregon Health District
Coquille Valley Hospital NFP Supported by Coquille Valle y Hospital Dist ri ct Oregon Heal th District
Curry General Hospital NFP Supported by Curry Health Hospital District Oregon Health District
Harney District Hospital NFP Supported by Harney County District Oregon Health District
Lake District Hospital NFP Supported by Lake County Health District Oregon Health DistrictLower Umpqua Hospital NFP Supporte d by Lower Umpqua Hospital District Oregon Health District
Pioneer Memorial Hospital - Heppner NFP Supported by Morrow County Health District Oregon Health District
Mountain View Hospital NFP Supported by Mt. View Hospital District Oregon Health DistrictSouthern Coos Hospital NFP Supported by Southern Coos Hospital Distri ct Oregon Health District
Wallowa Memorial Hospital NFP Supported by Wallowa County Heal th Care Oregon Heal th District
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 20
Table 5. Fire and Police Stations
Number
City Fire Departments 197
Rural Fire Protection Districts 375
Port of Portland Fire 1
SUM Fire 573
City Police 107County Sheriff 65
Oregon State Police 26
SUM Police 198
2.4. Qualifying Buildings: Fire and Police Stations
Unlike for schools and hospitals, no comprehensive database for fire or police stations was available fromOregon Emergency Management or other agencies. Two important lists were provided by the Fire Marshall.
It was therefore necessary to develop a comprehensive data set by:
• translating the Fire Marshall list into a geo-referenced database
• sourcing a dataset of geo-coded stations derived from phone directories
• exploring city, county, fire association and district websites
• requesting locations and addresses from city, county, and state emergency managementdepartments
We estimate that we have located nearly all Oregon city fire and police department, rural fire protectiondistrict, county sheriff, emergency response/911 centers, and Oregon State Police (OSP) stations. However,we anticipate that we may have omitted several stations, perhaps numbering a few dozen.
The city, county, and state fire and police emergencyservice centers located and included in this assessment areshown in Table 5 (see Appendix E for detailed listing).
An additional 10 OSP and 27 Rural Fire ProtectionDistrict (RFPD) stations were screened in the field, butwere documented as having private-party ownership, sothey were excluded from inclusion in the results.
Overall, the location of the 1,280 education and 829emergency sites included in the assessment mimics wellestablished population density and transportation corridorpatterns in Oregon (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Location of the 1,280 education and 829 emergency sites included in the assessment.
The results of DOGAMI’s seismic needs assessment are presented as individual site summary reports and inspreadsheets by facility type (see appendices). Example summary report and spreadsheet pages are shown inFigure 15. The terminology used in these reports and calculations of scores are described in sections 3.2
through 3.12 below and also defined in the keys given in Appendix I.
Figure 15. Example seismic needs assessment site summary report and RVS score spreadsheet.
Appendix reports contain, forexample, final RVS scores andbuilding collapse potential by facilitytype to allow for easy comparison.Color codes distinguish Very High(red), High (yellow), Moderate(green), and Low (white) seismicrisk.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 22
3.2. FEMA 154 and Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) Methodology
Key factors that influence how and why buildings are damaged in an earthquake include:
• geological and soil conditions at the site
• building construction details, including materials, structural systems, and plan configuration
• existing building conditionThese factors are at the core of the FEMA-derived rapid visual screening (RVS) procedure that was
formulated to identify, inventory and rank buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous.Initially published in 1988, FEMA 154 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards: A Handbook , was written for a broad audience ranging from engineers and building officials tononprofessionals. The handbook provided a “sidewalk survey” approach that enabled users to classifysurveyed buildings into two categories:
• Those acceptable as to life safety, or
• Those that may be seismically hazardous and should be evaluated in more detailIf a building receives a high score the building is considered to have adequate seismic resistance. If a
building receives a low score, it should be evaluated by a professional engineer having experience and
training in seismic design. On the basis of this detailed inspection, engineering analyses, and otherdetailed procedures, a final determination of the seismic adequacy and the need for rehabilitation can
be made.During the 1990s the rapid visual screening procedure was used by organizations and agencies to
evaluate more than 70,000 buildings nationwide. Concurrent with the use of FEMA 154 (1988), damagingearthquakes occurred in California that provided valuable lessons on structural design for seismic lateralforce resistance. Further, extensive research was carried out under the National Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP). These efforts yielded new data on the performance of buildings inearthquakes, and on the expected distribution, severity, and occurrence of earthquake-induced groundshaking. FEMA used these data and research to update and improve the RVS procedure provided in thesecond edition of the FEMA 154 report, published in 2002. The revised procedure retains the sameframework but incorporates a revised scoring system compatible with the ground motion criteria in theFEMA 310 report, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – A Prestandard (ASCE, 1998), and thedamage estimation data provided in the HAZUS damage and loss estimation methodology.
DOGAMI has relied upon the FEMA 154 report, 2002 edition, to classify the relative seismic risk of
qualifying and included education and emergency services buildings in Oregon.The RVS procedure has a scoring system that requires the user to:
• establish the seismicity zone in which the site occurs,
• determine the soil type beneath the building to a depth of 100 feet,
• identify the primary structural lateral-load-resisting system,
• identify building attributes that modify the seismic performance expected of this lateral-load-resisting system (note: also referred to as “Lateral Force Resisting System,” or LFRS),
• recognize falling hazards, although these do not impact the RVS scoreDOGAMI chose FEMA preferred method 2, (FEMA 154 report section 2.4.1, page 8) to establish the
seismicity zone for every site. Site locations are based upon GPS coordinates recorded in the field ordetermined by geographic information system (GIS) techniques. Every site in Oregon is then classified asbeing in either HIGH or a MODERATE seismicity zone. We also provide an additional classification in thedatabase; VERY HIGH, that reflects heightened ground motion anticipated in the coastal region, althoughthis has not affected scores.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 23
3.3. Oregon Seismic Zones for FEMA 154 Scoring
Oregon has two FEMA 154 seismicity regions: High and Moderate. DOGAMI has crafted a “Very High”seismicity region near the coast where earthquake-induced ground motion will be most severe during aCascadia Subduction Zone event (Figure 16). This designation is for information purposes but does notimpact RVS scoring. Sites situated in the Very High zone are scored the same as those in the High seismiczone.
Figure 16. FEMA 154 seismicity zones in Oregon. The VERY HIGH zone that reflects heightened groundmotion anticipated in the coastal region is a DOGAMI classification but sites in this zone are scored the
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 24
3.4. RVS Soil Types
NEHRP has established an A to F soil classification scheme, based upon shear wave velocity, relativepounding penetration rate tests and undrained shear strength. We focused on shear wave velocity. (Note: Esoils may be subject to liquefaction, wherein the sediment starts to behave like a liquid.)
Table 6. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Soil Classification System
Average Soil Properties for Top 30 m (100 feet)SoilType
Soil Name Shear-wave Velocity,Vs (m/s)
Standard PenetrationTest, N (blows/foot)
Undrained ShearStrength su (kPa)
SA Hard Rock >1,500
SB Rock 760 to 1,500 — —
SC Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 360 to 760 >50 100SD Stiff Soil 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil <180 <15 <50SF Soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation
DOGAMI found two sources of data to
determine the NEHRP soil type for eachbuilding:
• DOGAMI has previously released datathat include either 3-dimensional (43%of buildings) or 2-dimensionalNEHRP soil values (37%) over certainOregon urban areas and county regions(Figure 17).
• We sourced the Oregon Department of Water Resources water well data setand triangulated an average soilprofile, and resultant shear wave
velocity, beneath each site (57%)For the 37% of buildings where both 2-dimensional and well data sources wereavailable, the soil values matched with an 87%frequency. Where 2-dimensional and soilvalues did not match, the details werereviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The frequency of occurrence of each soiltype for the 3,404 screened buildings with soilsis B: 679, C: 1,549, D: 1,141, and E: 35. BasicRVS scores assume a B soil (rock). Soil typesC, D, and E introduce negative RVS score
modifiers that thereby increase the estimatedprobability of building collapse due tomaximum considered earthquake groundmotions.
Figure 17. Relationship of areas of NEHRP soil models to seismicassessment sites and ODWR well data based soil profiles.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 25
3.5. RVS Building Irregularities, Plan Views, and “Buildings” versus “Sites”
The horizontal and vertical shapes of buildings have marked impacts on building performance during anearthquake, so the RVS technique uses both “vertical irregularities” and “plan irregularities” as negativescore modifiers (Figure 18 and Appendix J).
Figure 18. Vertical and plan irregularities describe the shapes of buildings andimpact building performance during an earthquake. See Appendix J.
In addition to locating and mapping each site to be assessed, DOGAMI provided a “plan view” mapimage of each site (Figure 19). This provided a useful field guide to plan irregularities, scale, and position of individual buildings:
Figure 19. A plan view for each site shows the location of each building assessedat the site.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 26
Table 7. Benchmark Years for Building Structural Types in the Assessment
3.6. RVS Structural Type
Buildings are constructed from wood, steel, concrete, and/or masonry. Schematic diagrams of the keystructural types, along with their post-benchmark building code dates for Oregon are shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. FEMA 154 benchmark dates and building structural types. See Table 7 for definitions. The number 3 in thered boxes indicates greater than or less than 3 stories.
Lateral force resisting systems are
based upon shear wall, momentframe, or lateral bracingtechniques.
The combinations andpermutations of these materialsand systems derive 15 RVSstructural types shown in Table7. Table 7 also includes keybenchmark dates for eachbuilding type, wherein criticalimprovements were made inseismic design standards. In
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 27
Figure 21. Screeners in the field used computer tablets for data entry. Screenersused a digital camera (attached to tablet at left) to take photographs of buildings andirregularities.
DOGAMI used the FEMA default value of 1941 as the pre-code year. After examination of the buildingcode history in Oregon we selected the post-benchmark years shown in Table 8, reflecting when appropriateseismic zones and UBC criteria were adopted.
Table 8. FEMA 154 Post-Benchmark Dates for Oregon
3.7. RVS Data Collection
DOGAMI contracted RVS-experienced engineering and architecture professors from the three major Oregonuniversities, along with selected students, to collect field data where buildings were pre-determined to havebeen built before 1994 and had not been seismically rehabilitated. Screeners followed the protocol providedin Appendix K.
Careful effort was made to ensure consistency between screeners in determining building types andimportant RVS score modifiers, such as vertical and horizontal irregularities. DOGAMI senior staff andproject leaders provided qualitycontrol for screeners and results.
Screeners were providedglobal positioning system (GPS)navigation devices to collectaccurate spatial data, and a PCtablet loaded with pull downmenu-style RVS data entry forms(Figure 21). Screeners wereasked to verify key data such asphysical address and buildingentity year built. A digital camerawas integrated with the tablet tocapture evidence of key decisionsthe screeners made. Thephotographs and screening resultswere web-linked andsynchronized at regular intervalsto a SQL server hosting thedatabase.
Screeners had the flexibilityto separate the buildings encountered on each site into individual building entities in order to more accuratelycapture individual buildings, varying building types that may be attached, and construction vintage. Thus, thedatabase contains 3,349 building entities at 2,109 sites. K-12 schools averaged three building entities per site,
when RVS field data were collected during 2006, whereas fire and police stations rarely had more than onebuilding identified.
W1 W2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 C1 C2 C3 PC1 PC2 RM1 RM2 URM
Post-benchmark year:1979 1979 1996 1994 NA NA 1994 NA 1999 NA 1999 1993
Year if 3 or more stories 1979 1979 1979Year if 1 or 2 stories 1990 1990 1990
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 28
3.8. RVS Scoring
FEMA 154 provides data collection form templates for each of the LOW, MODERATE and HIGHseismicity zones. Scoring on each sheet varies by building type, irregularity, pre-code and post-benchmark dates, and by soil types. The final score relates to the expected probability of collapse due to the maximumconsidered earthquake ground motions. A score of 3.0 is a probability of 0.1%, whereas scores of 2.0 and 1.0represent probabilities of 1% and 10%, respectively. Therefore, lower RVS scores indicate greater risk.
Negative RVS scores are possible, but do not have added significance. Where necessary, screeners collecteddata for up to three building types per building. The FEMA 154 protocol is used to select the lowest scoredtype.
The hypothetical and simplified score sheet in Figure 22 illustrates the manner in which a screenerselected three different building types of the same building encountered in the field. This example assumes atwo-story school building with brick cladding that disguises its structural type. The building has both verticaland plan irregularities. The three structural types shown here are the dominant types in this assessmentdataset. The impacts that the score modifiers have on the calculated final RVS scores are shown:
Figure 22. Hypothetical, simplified RVS score sheet. The lowest score (0.5) from the three structural types is the one selectedas the building’s final RVS score.
The detail of the Figure 22 example includes:
• The building has a plaque that states it was constructed in 1986; therefore no pre-1941 pre-codemodifier applies.
• The critical post-benchmark date for W2 wood frame buildings is 1979. Because the buildingwas built in 1986, the post-benchmark modifier applies to the W2 primary choice. The other twotypes, C2 and RM1, have much more recent post-benchmark dates, reflecting that only morerecent building codes include adequate lateral force resisting systems.
• Although wood-framed buildings have basic RVS scores that are greater than the other types,
they also have greater vertical irregularity negative modifiers.• The Secondary final RVS score is the lowest, so it is selected as the Final RVS score.
• The 0.5 RVS score translates to a 32% probability of collapse, and DOGAMI labels this scorerange as having HIGH relative seismic risk.
This example demonstrates the limitations of having general, as opposed to specific, information.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 29
3.9. RVS Building Type Results
The distribution of building types within this assessment is shown in Table 9 and in Figure 23.
Table 9. Distribution of Building Types Found in the Seismic Needs AssessmentSee Table 7 for definitions.
The most prevalent types of K-12 schools are reinforced masonry buildings with flexible floor and roof diaphragms (such as wood or steel), large wood frame buildings, and concrete shear wall buildings.Community college buildings are frequently either concrete moment frame or concrete shear wall structures,typical of high-rise buildings in the urban environment. Fire stations are consistently small wood, light steelframe, or concrete block (reinforced masonry) buildings.
Steel buildings, other than the light steel frame fire stations, are not a common RVS building type due tothe limitations and design of the RVS technique:
• The majority of buildings in this assessment were not multi-storied.• Screeners did not have the opportunity to review building plans.
• Buildings commonly have brick cladding that disguises the lateral resisting force system.
Given that K-12 schools average nearly 10 times the gross square footage of fire and police stations
and that they are generally older, more complex buildings that commonly have both vertical and plan
irregularities and have been built on slopes, we anticipate lower RVS scores, with the accompanyinggreater probabilities of collapse.
In an absolute sense, K-12 schools dominate the universe of assessed buildings in Oregon:
Figure 23. Distribution of building structural type. See Table 7 for definitions.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 30
3.10. RVS Score Results
RVS scores, along with the RVS fields that drive them, are provided for each qualifying site as Appendix C(K-12 schools), Appendix D (Community college buildings), Appendix E (City Fire and Police Departments,County Sheriff’s Offices, Oregon State Police, and Rural Fire Protection Districts) and Appendix F(Hospitals). RVS score ranges per building type for each major facility type are shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. RVS scores for (top) K-12 schools and (bottom) fire and police facilities. See Table 7 for definitions.
Notes for K-12 facilities:
• Both small and largewood frame buildings(W1 and W2) have abimodal distribution,reflecting the presenceof vertical andhorizontal irregularitiesin the lower-scoringbuildings
• The large number of buildings with scores
below 2.0 correlates tothe original constructiondates
Notes for Fire and Police
facilities:• Small wood frame
buildings have a strongbimodal distribution,with the dominant modein the lower probabilityof collapse region
• The significant numberof light steel framebuildings cluster in themid-score range
• The lowest scorescorrespond to thereinforced masonrytype, followed by largewood frame andconcrete shear wall
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 31
Figure 25 highlights the variance between K-12 and fire and police building populations. The FEMA 154scoring defines buildings with a score of 2.01 and above as “adequate” and 2.0 and below as “inadequate.”We have divided the relative seismic risk into Very High, High, Moderate, and Low categories, and in thisreport we have assigned a color code of red (Very High), yellow (High), green (Moderate), and white (Low)to seismic risk categories.
Figure 25. Variance between K-12 and police and fire station building RVS scores. At 10% probability of collapse 53.4 %of K-12 schools are vulnerable whereas 27.5% of fire and police stations are vulnerable. FEMA 154 and DOGAMI risk
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 32
3.11. District-Level Relative Seismic Risk
Although there are important exceptions at the individual building level, school, hospital, city fire and policeand rural fire protection districts each tend to have a fairly consistent incidence of their buildings’ relativeseismic risk.
DOGAMI has ranked relative seismic risk at the district level. Table 10 illustrates the procedure and theresults.
Table 10. District Level Seismic Risk Scores. Data are telescoped at thehash-marks for demonstration purposes.
The procedure works as follows:
• The number of buildings perdistrict in each seismic risk category is recorded.
• A logarithmic scoring system,weighted by the number of buildings in each seismic risk category, is introduced (1000points for Very High, 100 forHigh, 10 for Moderate and 1
for Low).• The weighted average district-
level relative seismic risk score is calculated.
• District-level seismic risk scores are given a Highest,Medium, or Lowest seismicrisk label based upon keybreak points in the schooldistrict seismic scores.
The same point-based relative seismicrisk scheme is used for communitycollege, hospital, city fire and police,county sheriff, and rural fire protectiondistricts (1000–300: Highest; 299–50:Medium; 49–1: Lowest).
It is vital to note that this scheme does not suggest that individual school buildings that have VeryHigh seismic risk yet are located within Lowest Seismic Risk districts have less need for seismic
rehabilitation than do similarly rated schools located in Highest Seismic Risk districts. Rather, this
approach ranks school districts versus one another by their relative seismic risk.
Listings of district-level relative seismic risk are provided as Appendix G (K-12 and Community College
Districts) and Appendix H (Fire and Police Districts and Acute Care Hospitals).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 33
3.12. RVS Score Results
In summary, the seismic risk of Oregon essential services buildings qualifying and included in this statewideseismic needs assessment is dominated by K-12 public schools, as shown in Table 11 and Figure 26.
Table 11. Summary of Seismic Risk for All Qualifying Sites and Buildings
Summary of Seismic Risk for all Qualifying Sites & Buildings Score: <0.0 0.1-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0
# of # of # of FEMA 154-Based Collapse Potential
Seismic Needs Assessment District Districts Schools Buildings Very High High Moderate Low
Education:
K12 Public School Districts & ESD 170 1101 2185 273 745 501 666
Community College Districts 17 179 184 20 73 33 58
Sum Education 187 1280 2369 293 818 534 724
Emergency:
City Districts (Police & Fire Departments) 143 327 26 78 75 148
Rural Fire Protection Districts 191 440 13 62 62 303
County Sheriff's Offices 34 73 5 24 18 26
Oregon State Police 1 26 0 5 4 17
Port of Portland 1 1 0 0 0 1
Acute Care Hospitals 58 116 10 26 10 70
Sum Emergency 428 983 54 195 169 565
SUM ALL: 3352 347 1013 703 1289
10% 30% 21% 38%
Figure 26. Graphical summary of seismic risk for all qualifying sites and buildings.
Note: Based upon the data at hand, we anticipate that the Oregon University System will have about twicethe number of buildings as community colleges and will have a seismic risk distribution similar to the K-12school system. In this case, the OUS universe of buildings will likely have one third the scope of problemthat the K-12 system has.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 34
The spatial distribution of relative seismic need demonstrates “Very High Relative Seismic Risk”scattered throughout the state (Figure 27), with “Low Relative Seismic Risk” found especially in areasflanking the Willamette Valley where soils are thin and less problematic.
Figure 27. Relative collapse potential for all sites in this seismic needs assessment study.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 36
4.0. RELATIVE NEED
The legislative directives include an instruction for DOGAMI to rank the visual screening results in risk categories on the basis of need and other categories. The other categories are:
• Importance of the building to the community,
• Risk to the building posed by its location,
• Risk posed to the community by the collapse of the building during a seismic event,
• Projected cost of the necessary seismic rehabilitationWe were not able to determine the relative importance of any one building to one community versus the
importance of another building to another community, and an assessment of the projected cost of necessaryseismic rehabilitation of each building is far beyond the scope and funding of this project. We did assess therisk posed to buildings by their proximity to the hazard of tsunami inundation. We suggest that one couldproportion relative risk posed to a community by the collapse of any one building by multiplying theprobability of collapse by occupancy or enrollment.
We have focused on need. Need is defined by dictionary.com as:1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation:2. a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary:3. urgent want, as of something requisite:4. necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case:5. a situation or time of difficulty; exigency:6. a condition marked by the lack of something requisite:7. destitution; extreme poverty:8. to have need of; require9. to be under an obligation10. to be in need or want.11. to be necessary:
In order to quantify need, DOGAMI has focused in on the 10th listed meaning: To be in Need or Want,as in “To need money.”
The logic behind this is that we anticipate considerable interest at the district level for State-sourcedseismic rehabilitation bond funds, given the consistent perspective that Oregon does not have a surplus of General and Lottery funds to finance many new construction projects. By identifying the relative fiscal need
of various districts in advance, especially as compared to their relative seismic risk, we arm the SeismicRehabilitation Grant Committee with additional information for their deliberations.
The basis of relative district fiscal need by district type was determined as follows:
• K-12 school districts— 3 methods (see Appendix G):o U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data provided federal
estimates of the number of school-aged children in poverty within each school district in2004 (most recent accessible data). We then calculated the percentage of school agedchildren in poverty per district (a proxy for presence of community need).
o the Oregon Department of Revenue’s Oregon Property Tax Statistics Supplementprovided property taxes paid per district for 2005-06, that we then calculated perenrolled student (a proxy for relative property value and community wealth, or absenceof community need), and
o Many school districts’ voters have approved school bonds in the 1997–2006 period; wecalculated an average amount of bonds raised per 2005-06 enrolled student.
• Hospitals: annual gross patient revenues were factored into the relative fiscal needdetermination, with low revenues generally translating into higher fiscal need.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 37
The objective was to provide reliable quantitative data for the Seismic Rehabilitation Grants Committee.In essence, the objective is to reduce risk and need into a two-dimensional plot (Figure 29).
Figure 29. Seismic risk and need can be reduced to a two-dimensional plot.
4.1. K-12 School District Relative Fiscal Need
The U.S. Census SAIPE data for 2004 provides estimates of the total population, age 5-17 school-agedpopulation, and number of age 5–17 living in households in poverty for every school district (SD) in thenation. We calculated the proportion of school aged children in poverty (Oregon average: 14.2%, rangingfrom 26.9% in Elgin SD and North Powders SD to 2.7% in Lake Oswego SD) as one method to determinethe presence or absence of school district relative fiscal need:
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 38
The Oregon Department of Revenue (ODR) Research Section annually prepares an Oregon Property TaxStatistics Report and Supplement. The supplement includes school and other district property tax data. Weselected the Total Tax Imposed data field to compare with school district enrollment take from the ODE2005-06 database (Figure 30). We excluded property taxes imposed for school bond sales.
The relationship between the two methods for the large school districts is relatively strong, with a -62%correlation. For example, less wealthy – higher poverty school districts such as Woodburn, David Douglas,and Klamath Falls City have high relative fiscal need by both methods, whereas more wealthy – lower
poverty school districts such as Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tigard-Tualatin, and Sherwood have low relativefiscal need by both methods.
Figure 30. Plot of school district property tax per student versus percentage of enrolled students l iving inpoverty for the largest 43 school districts in Oregon (77% of enrolled students in the state).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 39
It is noteworthy that several Oregon coast school districts are characterized by high property values, anolder-skewed population base, and relatively soft economic conditions (Figure 31). These districts havelower need by the wealth method and higher need by the poverty method.
Figure 31. Plot of property tax paid per enrolled student versus percentage of children in poverty for all schooldistricts included in the assessment.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 40
4.2. Fiscal Need: General Obligation Bond Data
In Oregon there is a mixed record of success by school districts in gaining voter approval in passingmeasures to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance the capital cost of new school andseismic rehabilitation construction.
During the May 1997 through November 2006 period, 92 Oregon school districts have gained voterapproval to issue bonds totaling $3.67 billion (Figure 32). The greatest monetary success was in the
November 2006 general election, wherein 17 districts passed bonds totaling $1.33 billion, while 19 districtshad bonds fail, totaling $0.65 billion.
Certain districts, such as Cascades, Gervais, Milton-Freewater, David Douglas, and Molalla River, havea track record of repeated measure failure, whereas others, such as North Clackamas, West Linn-Wilsonville,and Bend-LaPine have consistent success. Many school districts, such as Oregon City, Clatskanie, St Helens,Coquille, Redmond, Central Point, Rogue River, Silver Falls, Centennial, and Reynolds, have measures thatwere successful on the third attempt during this period.
Oregon School District Bond Measures Voting Results 1997-2006
$(750,000,000)
$(500,000,000)
$(250,000,000)
$-
$250,000,000
$500,000,000
$750,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,250,000,000
$1,500,000,000
M a y - 9 7
S e p - 9 7
J a n - 9 8
M a y - 9 8
S e p - 9 8
J a n - 9 9
M a y - 9 9
S e p - 9 9
J a n - 0 0
M a y - 0 0
S e p - 0 0
J a n - 0 1
M a y - 0 1
S e p - 0 1
J a n - 0 2
M a y - 0 2
S e p - 0 2
J a n - 0 3
M a y - 0 3
S e p - 0 3
J a n - 0 4
M a y - 0 4
S e p - 0 4
J a n - 0 5
M a y - 0 5
S e p - 0 5
J a n - 0 6
M a y - 0 6
S e p - 0 6
C u m u l a t i v e A m o u n t s
Passed
Failed
Nov ’06: $1,326,135,000
SUM ’97-’06: $3,667,398,698
SUM ’97-’06: ($3,060,720,004)
15
10
17
5 6
5 4 2 3
17
18
11
5
5
7
107
5
19
Figure 32. Oregon school district bond measures voting results 1997–2006.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 41
Similarly, in November 2006 voters authorized 20 fire and police districts to issue bonds totaling $157million while they turned down requests by 10 fire and police districts for bonds totaling $42 million (Table12). Ten fire districts gained at least 60% approval, versus only one school district. During the same election,all five requests by community college districts, totaling $197 million, failed to gain voter support.
Table 12. November
2006 Oregon SchoolDistrict and CommunityCollege CapitalProjects Bond MeasureElection Results
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 43
Table 13 includes a calculation of the amount of bonds approved in the past decade per currentlyenrolled student. This statistic ranges up to $34,246 per student, and averages $8,729.
Note that since the average K-12 school in Oregon is 70,500 square feet and has an enrollment of 488,there is about 144 square feet of school per student. At a capital cost of $125 per square foot, the averagecapital cost of a school building is $18,000 per enrolled student. Further, at $15 per square foot, and whereneeded, the rough seismic rehabilitation cost per enrolled student in Oregon is about $2,160 per student.
Although the measure occurred prior to this study period, the $196.7 million in bonds approved by
Portland voters in 1996 works out to $4,186 per currently enrolled student and is proportionately very similarto the $24 million investment made by Three Rivers/Josephine County voters during the 1997–2006 period.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 44
5.0. OTHER RISK CATEGORIES: TSUNAMI INUNDATION RISK
The Oregon coast is subject to tsunami inundation in the event of large Cascadia Subduction Zoneearthquakes and also by smaller tsunamis caused by distant great earthquakes, such as the Great AlaskanEarthquake that occurred at about 5:36 pm, local time, on March 27, 1964. This earthquake lasted from 3 to 4minutes and generated tsunami waves throughout the Pacific basin. In Oregon the tsunami waves arrivedbetween about 11:30 pm and 4:30 am on March 28th. Wave heights ranging from a few to 14 feet high
surged into estuaries along the coast at different times and in varying intervals. In Yaquina Bay, four largewaves of almost equal height arrived in roughly half-hour intervals between midnight and 2:00 am.
At Cannon Beach the 1964 waves destroyed the bridge crossing at Elk Creek, carrying the bridge deck approximately 1,000 feet upstream (Figure 33).
Figure 33. Impact of 1964 Alaska Tsunami at Cannon Beach, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 45
DOGAMI has been investigating tsunami inundation along the coast for over 12 years and has hazardinformation for various portions of the coast. Although the actual wave run-up at any specific point along thecoast will depend on local conditions, the anticipated inundation due to a large Cascadia earthquake mayreach the 100 foot elevation.
This assessment contains 150 sites at risk of possible tsunami inundation. We have qualitatively assessedthe relative risk of tsunami inundation based upon whether or not the site is situated within, immediatelyproximal to, or near to the elevation of mapped inundation hazard lines. For example, consider Figure 34.
Figure 34. Computer-generated tsunami inundation zones for Florence, Oregon (DOGAMI).
• High Tsunami Inundation Risk Sites: those sites that occur seaward of the ORS 455.446
Tsunami Inundation Zone Line or within the High Risk zone of published DOGAMI tsunamihazard maps.
• Moderate Risk Sites: those sites that occur landward of the ORS 455.446 Tsunami Inundation
Zone Line but seaward of any other published tsunami inundation line, including DOGAMIhazard maps and evacuation brochures.
• Low Risk Sites: those sites that occur landward of published tsunami maps and fall below anelevation of 80 feet in northern Oregon and 95 feet in southern Oregon; for this assessment thedividing line between northern and southern Oregon is Cape Blanco.
• Very Low Risk Sites: those sites that occur landward of published tsunami maps and fall abovean elevation of 80 feet and 95 feet in northern and southern Oregon, respectively.
The suspected higher wave run-up in southern Oregon is due to the fact that the deformation front islocated closer to the coast.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 46
In summary, the relative risk categories are qualitative and reflect sites with different relative risks,considering a multitude of tsunami scenarios, different methods of rendering tsunami hazard information andperception of risk expressed by the evacuation maps. This assessment reveals that numerous sites along thecoast face tsunami inundation risk, as shown in Table 14.
Till_sch08 Nestucca Highschool 34660 Parkway Dr Cloverdale 56 3 Low RiskTill_sch04 Nestucca Valley Elementary 36925 Hwy 101 S Cloverdale 36 3 Low Risk
Coos_sch01 Blossom Gulch Elementary 333 S 10Th Coos Bay 34 3 Low Risk
Coos_sch03 Madison Elementary 400 Madison St Coos Bay 76 3 Low RiskCoos_sch17 Resource Link Charter 740 S 7th St Coos Bay 62 3 Low RiskCoos_sch04 Sunset Middleschool 245 S Cammann Coos Bay 72 3 Low Risk
Lane_sch97 Siuslaw Elementary 2525 Oak St Florence 70 3 Low RiskLane_sch69 Siuslaw Elementary 2221 Oak St Florence 57 3 Low Risk
Lane_sch70 Siuslaw Highschool 2975 Oak St Florence 79 3 Low Risk
Lane_sch68 Siuslaw Middleschool 2525 Oak St Florence 70 3 Low RiskTill_sch05 Garibaldi Elementary 603 Cypress St Garibaldi 79 3 Low RiskCurr_sch07 Blanco 48241 Hwy 101 Langlois 87 3 Low Risk
Oceanlake Elementary School 2420 NE 22nd St Lincoln City 3 Low Risk
Linc_sch04 Taft Middleschool 4040 High School Dr Lincoln City 56 3 Low RiskTill_sch06 Nehalem Elementary 36300 8th St Nehalem 75 3 Low RiskCoos_sch09 North Bend High 2323 Pacific Ave North Bend 16 3 Low Risk
Coos_sch08 North Bend Middleschool 1500 16th St North Bend 35 3 Low RiskCoos_sch15 Oregon Coast Technology 1913 Meade St North Bend 38 3 Low RiskCurr_sch06 Driftwood Elementary 1210 Oregon St Port Orford 50 3 Low Risk
Clat_sch09 Warrenton High 1700 Se Main Warrenton 25 3 Low RiskClat_sch12 Astoria Elementary 3550 Franklin Ave Astoria 93 4 Very Low RiskCoos_sch02 Bunker Hill Elementary 62858 Hwy 101 S Coos Bay 98 4 Very Low Risk
Coos_sch21 Millicoma Middleschool 260 Second Ave Coos Bay 81 4 Very Low RiskLinc_sch14 Lincoln City Career Technical High 801 Sw Hwy 101 Lincoln City 90 4 Very Low Risk
Linc_sch10 Taft Highschool 3780 SE Spyglass Ridge Rd Lincoln City 89 4 Very Low RiskCoos_sch06 Hillcrest Elementary 1100 Maine St North Bend 98 4 Very Low RiskCoos_sch07 North Bay Elementary 93670 Viking Way North Bend 85 4 Very Low Risk
Clat_hos01 Columbia Memorial Hospital 2111 Exchange St Astoria 13 3 Low Risk
Coos_hos02 Southern Coos Hospital 900 11Th St Se Bandon 69 3 Low RiskLane_hos02 Peace Harbor Hospital 400 9th St Florence 26 3 Low Risk
Curr_hos01 Curry General Hospital 94220 4th St Gold Beach 53 3 Low Risk
Linc_hos02 Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital 3043 Ne 28th St Lincoln City 53 3 Low RiskDoug_hos02 Lower Umpqua Hospital 600 Ranch Rd Reedsport 72 3 Low Risk
Doug_pol08 Reedsport Police Dept 146 N 4th St Reedsport 33 3 Low Risk
Linc_fir09 Seal Rock RFPD 10333 Nw Rand St Seal Rock 46 3 Low Risk
Till_erc01 Tillamook 911 Center 2311 Third Street Tillamook 20 3 Low RiskTill_pol06 Tillamook City Police Dept-City Hall 207 Madrona Ave Tillamook 20 3 Low Risk
Till_pol05 Tillamook County Sheriff's Office 5995 Long Prairie Rd Tillamook 39 3 Low Risk
Till_fir01 Tillamook Fire Dist 2310 4th St Tillamook 20 3 Low Risk
Linc_fir21 Yachats RFPD-Yaquina John Station 1395 SW Corona St Waldport 16 3 Low Risk
6.0. OREGON SEISMIC REHABILITATION COSTS AND ACTIVITIES
Renovations involving seismic rehabilitation frequently are blended with other facility maintenance work,such as re-roofing. Many Oregon districts have initiated seismic risk assessment and rehabilitation projects.These include Portland, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Milwaukie, Yamhill-Carlton, Grants Pass, Gresham-Barlow,Salem-Keizer, Molalla River, Corvallis, Klamath County, West Linn-Wilsonville, North Clackamas,Gladstone, Medford, Springfield, North Santiam, Central, and Silverton school districts, Portland, Salem,
Sherwood, Newberg, North Lincoln, Brownsville and Tualatin Valley fire departments/districts, Mount HoodCommunity College, and Grande Ronde and Tillamook hospitals.
DOGAMI received copies of nearly 300 seismic evaluation reports generated for many districts bystructural engineering firms. In general, these reports are significantly superior to the RVS technique used inthis assessment. Where applicable, we used key information from these reports and have included the data inour dataset. In the database these buildings are identified by a “SER” (structural engineering report) trackingcode.
FEMA has a seismic rehabilitation cost estimator tool at http://www.fema.gov/srce/index.jspbased ondata collected through 1995. The program asks several simple questions, including age, performanceobjective (risk reduction, life safety,damage control, or
immediate occupancy;Oregon’s legislationtargets life safety),seismic zone, andbuilding type and size.The results for theselections shown inFigure 35 for woodframe, concrete shearwall, and reinforcedmasonry typesaveraged $8 per square
foot; the unreinforcedmasonry estimate was$27 per square foot.
The benefit-costrelationship betweenrepair and newconstruction iscomplex, requirescareful examination byexperiencedprofessionals, and
ultimately a districtwill determine to their own satisfaction a balance between financial cost and occupants life safety.
6.1. Portland Public Schools (PPS)
The Portland school district has completed seismic rehabilitation work on the majority of its high priorityschools, and for this reason DOGAMI has deemed these RETROFITTED schools as having only moderateseismic risk. The specific seismic rehabilitation costs at many Portland schools are the subject of ongoingevaluation by qualified structural engineering firms.
In 1995 the passage of Measure 26-31 authorized general obligation bonds in the amount of $197million. Seismic evaluations of Portland school district facilities based on FEMA 178 standards were
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 49
conducted by five structural engineering firms. Their work was based on design considerations to preventcollapse and allow occupants to safely exit during or after a seismic event. Subsequently, the district hired astructural engineering firm to normalize these evaluations and assign a relative hazard rating to eachbuilding. The findings of these studies were used to develop a prioritized program of seismic upgrades,which were designed to enhance the ability of occupants to safely exit a building damaged by a seismicevent. By summer 2003, seismic upgrades were reported as completed at 53 facilities, upgrading over half of the district’s schools, including those with the highest seismic hazard rating. Through 2001 PPS had
expended in excess of $20 million on these seismic upgrades.In 2002 PPS hired a consultant to review the seismic work recommended and completed, and to
recommend what further upgrades were necessary. In a news article dated January 16, 2007, PPS is quoted asindicating that 15 of the district’s 87 schools have a seismic ranking of 5, on a one to five scale (five havingthe highest priority), derived in 2005 by the same structural engineering firm that conducted the 2002appraisal. This work illustrates how costs can increase over time. For example, in 2002 the firm estimated thecost of rehabilitating Fernwood Middle School at $1.1 million. The article reports that by 2005 this work wasestimated at $1.5 million. PPS is quoted as debating the cost of fixing the facility versus an outrightreplacement.
6.2. Portland Fire Department
In 1998 Portland voters authorized the sale of $53.8 million in bonds for a $61.1 million program to improve
emergency facilities to be able to function after a seismic event. The program also considers accessibilityrequirements, energy conservation measures, and community needs. Twenty fire stations were to beupgraded to seismic code and 11 new stations were to be constructed over a ten year period. By August 200618 stations had been renovated and 4 new stations had completed construction.
6.3. Salem Fire Department
In 2006 Salem voters approved a $25 million bond to replace equipment ($9.3 million), build two newstations (10 and 11, $6.8 million), replace two existing fire stations (5 and 7, $6.6 million), and performseismic reinforcing at other stations (1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9, $1.3 million). Station 7 is vulnerable to collapse andwould require such extensive retrofitting to make it seismically sound that it was more cost effective torebuild.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 50
6.4. Hillsboro School District
Data provided by Hillsboro demonstrates how estimated rehabilitation costs can vary significantly for bothstructural and non-structural seismic risk mitigation, within and across building structural types (Table 15).
Table 15. Estimated Seismic Rehabilitation Costs for Hillsboro School District Schools
Hillsboro School District SER Seismic Structural Seismic Non-struct Sum
General_Name Yr Built Type SqFt Stories SE Date Structural per sq ft Non-structural per sq ft per sq ftReedville Elementary 1922 W2 16,247 1 Miller Sep-01 $ 246,366 $ 15 $ 41,334 $ 2.54 18$
David Hill Elementary 1948 W2 33,904 1 Miller Jul-01 $ 580,626 $ 17 $ 122,844 $ 3.62 21$
W est Union Elementary 1948 W 2 42,757 1 Miller Sep-01 $ 560,876 $ 13 $ 94,506 $ 2. 21 15$
Structural seismic rehabilitation cost estimates ranged from $1 to $28 per square foot for wood frameschools and from $1 to $38 per square foot for concrete shear frame-type schools. Non-structural seismicmitigation cost estimates averaged $2 to $3.50 per square foot.
6.5. Tualatin Valley Fire District
In 2006 western and southern Portland metro-area voters approved measure 34-133, a $77.5 million bondmeasure to correct seismic safety deficiencies at eight stations (#64, 65, 66, 69, 51, 35, 34, and 52), rebuildfive stations (68, 53, 56, 59 and 58), build two new stations, and other items.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 51
Figure 36. West Coast population growth 1930-2005 (Oregon data source:Oregon Blue Book; British Columbia data source: British Columbia Vital
Statistics).
7.0. COMPARABLE EARTHQUAKE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAMS – BRITISHCOLUMBIA
California has a long history in coping with earthquake risk, yet the province of British Columbia (BC) isparticularly noteworthy as a reference point for Oregon.
Although 3.7 timesthe physical size of
Oregon in area, BC has avery similar populationsize and growth rate asOregon (Figure 36). It hasone major metro area anda few moderate sizedcities. Its building stock isof similar vintage andsituated near river andvalley transportationsystems.
Like in Oregon, the
known earthquake hazardfor British Columbiachanged only recentlywith the documentation of the threat of the CascadiaSubduction Zone in theearly 1990s (Figure 37).
Therefore, the seismicassessment and mitigationactivities in BC provide bothpractical benchmarks and real-worldlessons learned for Oregon:
• The BC Ministry of Education initiated seismic assessments of public schools in the late 1980s, andseveral structural seismic upgrading projects in Vancouver and Victoria were funded in 1991-1992.
• In 1997 the Office of the Auditor General reported on the state of earthquake preparedness in theprovince.
• In 1999 the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislature tabled a report on earthquake risk.
• The province created the Ministry of Finance Seismic Mitigation Program as a pilot project in 1999-2000, and it distributed $130 million to government agencies between 2000 and 2003. Over thesefour years the program provided $63 million to 39 school districts located in high seismic risk zones.
• 13 additional projects at nine schools totaling $28.7 million were funded by the Ministry of Education between 2003 and 2006.
• In May 2004 BC announced that it would invest $2 million for a seismic assessment of 850 publicschools in 37 high-risk school districts as a part of a comprehensive plan to help keep students safe.
• In November 2004 the Premier of BC announced that the province would make a $1.5 billioninvestment over 15 years to ensure that schools in BC will meet acceptable seismic life safetystandards.
• In March 2005 the province announced the results of that assessment: 750 schools require upgradesover the next 15 years, 300 have a high risk of collapse; the province budgets $254 million forimprovements to the first list of 80 schools in 29 districts, with construction set to commence in 2006and be accomplished by 2009; seismic upgrade cost estimates at individual schools range from $0.6to $16.1 million.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 52
• In July 2005 the Ministry of education released its Feasibility Study Guidelines for SeismicMitigation Projects; the guidelines are the first step in the project procurement process and describethe consulting reports necessary to test and confirm the assumptions that led to the initial support of the project (the assessment results) and a second stage of more detailed evaluation of seismicdeficiencies and the development of a preferred retrofit option; the members of a Seismic MitigationProgram Advisory Committee are announced; following the acceptance of the feasibility study aproject agreement must be approved by the Education Minister.
• By September 2006 the rampaging construction boom in the province caused the estimated costs of seismic upgrading to nearly double, causing delays in project initiation and approval; school officialssaid that the $254 million for repairs was no longer realistic.
• In May 2007 the Province introduced new measures to help school districts speed up upgrades; largeschool districts will bundle projects into groups to speed up planning, design and construction and bemore cost effective
A link to the BC Ministry of Education’s website describing their program, the guidelines for seismicengineering Feasibility Studies, current project status, and more is found athttp://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/capitalplanning/seismic/ .
Figure 37. British Columbia school district seismic zones(http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcgov/content/images/@2Kp6_0YQtuW/seismic_map_rev2.pdf).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 53
8.0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION GRANT COMMITTEE
Recommendations to the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Committee
The scoring data and needs analysis from this report should be the starting point for developing the grantprogram. Very High Risk and High Risk facilities should be prioritized for consideration for rehabilitation.Acute care hospitals within community health service districts should be considered eligible for the grants.
Community-based acute care hospitals should also be considered eligible for the grant program. Theimportance of individual buildings to the community needs, as outlined as part of the ranking process inSenate Bill 2 (2005), needs further clarification.
Recommendations for Districts
DOGAMI recommends districts with buildings labeled as having High and Very High relative seismic risk of collapse during a seismic event to consider hiring a structural engineering consultant to more thoroughlyevaluate the seismic issues with their buildings. Please note that this FEMA 154 rapid visual screeningtechnique can both overestimate and underestimate relative seismic risk.
Recommendations for Fiscal Decision Makers
DOGAMI recommends that voters, community representatives, government administrators, and electedofficials carefully consider both the costs and benefits associated with seismic risk mitigation, rehabilitation,and community asset replacement. Many districts in Oregon have traveled down this path already and willhave valuable hard-won experience to share. Oregon has relatively high seismic risk, yet the time intervalbetween major subduction zone earthquake events is large, in human terms. The USGS predicts a 15%chance of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in the next 50 years. For reference, they also predict a62% chance of a major event in the San Francisco bay region in the next 25 years. This suggests thatOregonians have a manageable amount of time available to mitigate this risk over the next few decades. Thepublic school seismic rehabilitation program in British Columbia may provide valuable lessons.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 54
9.0. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Pioneers in seismic risk awareness and mitigation in Oregon include Don Hull and John Beaulieu, bothformer State Geologists. Senator Peter Courtney has been personally responsible for championing earthquakeawareness, assessment, and action within the Legislative Assembly over several biennia. Many OregonSeismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC) members, including Chris Thompson, Rose Gentry,Yumei Wang, and Jim Doane, have provided strong support and valuable perspectives in recent years.
OSSPAC participated in the DOGAMI-organized and FEMA-funded “G.O. Bonds Taskforce” during 2004-2005 in advance of the 73rd Legislative Assembly actions regarding Senate Bills 2 through 5. Funding forthis assessment, in the amount of $598,000, was provided by the State of Oregon.
DOGAMI appreciates the efforts of its many current partners in this project, including all of the localcommunity and district representatives who provided invaluable assistance in locating emergency facilityphysical addresses.
Vital RVS field work was efficiently and accurately produced by professors Tom Miller, ChristineTheodoropoulos, and Carol Hasenberg and their enthusiastic and thoughtful students: Nathan Wallace, JuanHernandez, Jerry Mikkelsen, Henry Pierce, Sam Jensen, Andy Tibbetts, and by DOGAMI’s Bill Burns(Figure 38).
Expert and timely database consulting services were provided by Frank Bubenik at Compass ComputingGroup. Ken Aaro, Aaro Computer Services, ensured that the server both functioned smoothly and was robust
enough to handle multiple user needs.Natalie Richards, sourced from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provided capable, focused, and
energetic project coordination.The writer also wishes to thank the dedicated, positive and very talented work performed on this project
by department staff, including Francesco Cataldo, Carol DuVernois, Margi Jenks, Ian Madin, James Roddey,Mark Sanchez, Deb Schueller, Paul Staub, Yumei Wang, Rudie Watzig, Rob Witter, and especially BillBurns and Jared Fischer. Needless to say, the project received critical support at every important turn byDirector Vicki McConnell.
Figure 38. Some members of the seismic needs assessment team: (back row from left) Nathan
Wallace, Sam Jensen, Andy Tibbetts, Henry Pierce, Juan Hernandez, Bill Burns; (middle rowfrom left) Yumei Wang, Carol Hasenberg, Christine Theodoropoulos, Jerry Mikkelsen;
(front row from left) Jared Fischer, Natalie Richards, and Tom Miller.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 55
10.0. REFERENCES
ASCE, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings — A Pre-standard , prepared by theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 310 Report,Washington D.C.Available online: http://www.degenkolb.com/0_0_Misc/0_1_FEMADocuments/fema310/prestnd.html
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, FEMA 154 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook , 2nd ed., Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series 41. Availableonline: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/earthquake/pdf/fema-154.pdf
McClure, F. E., 2006, Modern earthquake codes: History and development, Computers and Structures, Inc.,http://www.csiberkeley.com/Tech_Info/McClure_book_smll.pdf
Oregon Department of Revenue, Oregon property tax statistics, fiscal year 2005-06,http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/statistics.shtml#property
Office for Oregon Health Policy and Research, 2007, Oregon’s acute care hospitals: Capacity, utilization andfinancial trends, 2003 to 2005, http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OHPR/
Visit the FEMA Earthquake Publications for Building Professionals and Engineers website(http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/earthquake/professionals.shtm#2) for brief descriptions of FEMAhandbooks and links to FEMA publications online.
11.0. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CC community collegeDNQ did not qualifyDOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
ESD education service districtFEMA Federal Emergency Management AdministrationGIS geographic information systemG.O. Bond General Obligation BondGPS global positioning systemLFRS lateral force resisting systemNEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction ProgramODE Oregon Department of RevenueODWR Oregon Department of Water ResourcesOHSU Oregon Health Sciences UniversityORS Oregon Revised StatutesOSP Oregon State Police
OSSPAC Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory CommissionOUS Oregon University SystemRFPD rural fire protection districtRVS rapid visual screeningSAIPE U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty EstimatesSER structural engineering reportUBC Uniform Building CodeUSGS U.S. Geological Survey
267 0506 Coos Bay SD 9 COOS Coos Bay 9 Marshfield High (6 b ldgs) 1923 2001 286238 1,210
268 0506 North Bend SD 13 COOS North Bend 13 North Bend Sr High (5 bldgs) 1949 1976 172265 706 269 0506 Coos Bay SD 9 COOS Coos Bay 9 Sunset Middle 1993 94474 575
270 0506 Coos Bay SD 9 COOS Coos Bay 9 Blossom Gulch Elem 1954 59896 499
271 0506 North Bend SD 13 COOS North Bend 13 Hillc rest Elem 1948 1965 39484 495
272 0506 Coos Bay SD 9 COOS Coos Bay 9 Millacoma Middle 1963 81767 486
273 0506 Coos Bay SD 9 COOS Coos Bay 9 Madison Elem 1953 1962 41809 396
274 0506 Myrtle Point SD 41 COOS Myrtle Point 41 Myrtle Point High 1929 88500 391
275 0506 North Bend SD 13 COOS North Bend 13 North Bend Middle 1960 1975 86186 386
342 0506 Bend-LaPine Administrat ive SD 1 DESCHUTES Bend Lap ine 1 Juniper Elem 1965 1980 52134 408
343 0506 Bend-LaPine Administrat ive SD 1 DESCHUTES Bend Lap ine 1 Highland Sc hool at kenwood Elem 363 344 0506 Bend-LaPine Administrat ive SD 1 DESCHUTES Bend Lap ine 1 Pine Ridge Elem 2004 46500 360
433 0506 Double O SD 28 HARNEY Doub le O 28 Double O Elem 1953 2000 3000 1
434 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Hood River Valley High 1969 1994 180295 1,239
435 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Westside Elem 1969 1995 64760 460 436 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Hood River Middle 1927 1995 88483 451
437 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Wy'east Midd le 1951 1980 84616 428
438 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 May Street Elem 1922 1957 44354 422
439 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Mid Valley Elem 1937 1995 68162 409
440 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Parkdale Elem 1937 1995 40311 267
441 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Casc ade Loc ks School 1948 1995 41783 186
442 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Pine Grove Elem 1925 22540 127
443 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 The Next Door Inc 14
444 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Hood River Sheltered Workshop 8
445 0506 Hood River County SD HOOD RIVER Hood River County 1 Coe Learning Center 4
446 0506 Medford SD 549C JACKSON Medford 549 North Medford High (10 bldgs) 1967 1978 192822 1,941
447 0506 Medford SD 549C JACKSON Medford 549 South Medford High (3 bldgs) 1931 1987 259366 1,887
448 0506 Central Point SD 6 JACKSON Centra l Point 6 Crater High 1950 1990 138718 1,494
449 0506 Eagle Point SD 9 JACKSON Eagle Point 9 Eagle Point High 1975 177000 1,218
450 0506 Ashland SD 5 JACKSON Ashland 5 Ashland High (11 bldgs) 1948 1987 215827 1,123
Appendix A Oregon Seismic Needs Assessment DOGAMI (June 2007)
508 0506 Central Point SD 6 JACKSON Centra l Point 6 Hazel Midd le Prog 6
509 0506 Jefferson County SD 509J JEFFERSON Jefferson 509J Madras High 1964 84814 916
510 0506 Jefferson County SD 509J JEFFERSON Jefferson 509J Jefferson County Middle 1995 124288 678 511 0506 Jefferson County SD 509J JEFFERSON Jefferson 509J Warm Springs Elem (3 b ldgs) 1938 1964 45105 388
512 0506 Jefferson County SD 509J JEFFERSON Jefferson 509J Madras Elem 1938 1951 52428 277
547 0506 Three Rivers/Josephine County SD JOSEPHINE Three Rivers Southern Oregon Adolesc ent 10
548 0506 Three Rivers/Josephine County SD JOSEPHINE Three Rivers Southern Oregon ASTC 9
549 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Mazama High 1961 1989 129664 978
550 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Klamath Union High 1929 1996 206740 961
551 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Henley High 1964 1976 121200 657 552 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Shasta Elem 1966 62196 540
553 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Ferguson Elem 1954 1976 39575 531
554 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Peterson Elem 1948 1971 45600 520
555 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Mills Elem 1929 59914 485
556 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Ponderosa Jr High 1945 1996 84435 478
557 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Henley Middle 1949 54525 468
558 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Brixner Jr High 1972 64500 428
559 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Henley Elem 1929 1933 28900 367
560 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Roosevelt Elem 1929 25360 345
561 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Bonanza Jr/ Sr High 1944 93368 289
562 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Joseph Conger Elem 1930 1980 38849 288
563 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Lost River High 1970 66650 287
564 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Chiloquin High 1937 73680 282
565 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Fa irview Elem 1929 1980 39448 279
566 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Altamont Elem 1937 39032 275
567 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Stearns Elem 1958 33780 257
568 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Chiloquin Elem 1955 28266 256 569 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Fa irhaven Elem 1929 1952 24032 232
570 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Bonanza Elem 202
571 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klamath Falls c ity Sc hools Pelic an Elem 1929 1980 31287 185
572 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Merrill Elem 1950 1959 28200 179
573 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Keno Elem 1976 40600 170
574 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Gilc rest Jr/ Sr High 155
575 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Malin Elem 1971 31608 141
576 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klamath County Gilc hrist Elem 1938 23720 129
577 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klama th County Fa lcon Heights Ac ademy 95
578 0506 Klamath County SD KLAMATH Klama th County Gearhart Elem 1962 1968 23850 64
579 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Klamath Adult Lea rning center 46
580 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Klamath Youth Dev Ctr k-6 38
581 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Klamath Adult Lea rning (Non-Overlap) 25
582 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Transition House 15
583 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Klamath Institute (Non-Overlap) 13
584 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Klamath Institute (Overlap ) 11
5850506 Klamath Falls City Schools
KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Linkville Ac ademy Nonoverlap 11 586 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Wemble Academy 11
587 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Integra l Youth Services NVLC 8
588 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Integra l Youth Services Thru 3
589 0506 Klamath Falls City Schools KLAMATH Klama th Fa lls c ity Sc hools Mazama Froshmore 3
590 0506 Lake County SD 7 LAKE Lake County SD 7 Fremont Elem 1920 1959 17500 324
591 0506 Lake County SD 7 LAKE Lake County SD 7 Lakeview High 1962 1985 68881 305
592 0506 North Lake SD 14 LAKE North Lake 14 North Lake Sc hool 1991 54000 208
593 0506 Lake County SD 7 LAKE Lake County SD 7 Daly Midd le 1910 1930 47814 119
594 0506 Paisley SD 11 LAKE Paisley 11 Paisley School (4 b ldgs) 1913 1996 31869 85
595 0506 Lake County SD 7 LAKE Lake County SD 7 Union Elem 1920 1998 15776 47
925 0506 Silver Falls SD 4J MARION Silver Falls 4J Robert Frost Elem 1971 54000 396
926 0506 Salem-Keizer SD 24J MARION Salem/ Keizer 24J Washington Elem 1948 2000 65156 393 927 0506 Jefferson SD 14J MARION Jefferson SD 14J Jefferson Elem 1938 1966 31524 389
928 0506 Salem-Keizer SD 24J MARION Salem/ Keizer 24J Liberty Elem 1908 1993 52273 379
943 0506 Jefferson SD 14J MARION Jefferson SD 14J Jefferson High 1980 71400 288 944 0506 Salem-Keizer SD 24J MARION Salem/ Keizer 24J Salem Heights Elem 1938 1987 43783 288
945 0506 Salem-Keizer SD 24J MARION Salem/ Keizer 24J Bush Elem 1936 1949 54770 283
1035 0506 David Douglas SD 40 MULTNOMAH David Douglas 40 Gilbert Park Elem 1954 1995 49839 616 1036 0506 Centennial SD 28J MULTNOMAH Centennial 28J Butler Creek Elem 2003 595
1037 0506 David Douglas SD 40 MULTNOMAH David Douglas 40 Gilbert Heights Elem 1958 1996 64474 589
1256 0506 Central SD 13J POLK Centra l SD 13J Talmadge Middle 1965 2000 84090 404
1257 0506 Central SD 13J POLK Centra l SD 13J Ash Creek Intermediate 2002 57000 400
1258 0506 Perrydale SD 21 POLK Perrydale 21 Perrydale School 2001 50000 323
1259 0506 Central SD 13J POLK Centra l SD 13J Independent Elem 1925 2000 40450 308
1260 0506 Central SD 13J POLK Centra l SD 13J Henry Hill Elem 1938 1995 37640 297 1261 0506 Falls City SD 57 POLK Falls City 57 Falls City Elem 1939 1986 19000 117
1262 0506 Dallas SD 2 POLK Dallas 2 Morrison Cha rter 1935 1989 20242 99
1263 0506 Dallas SD 2 POLK Dallas 2 Luc kiamute Va lley Charter 94
1264 0506 Falls City SD 57 POLK Falls City 57 Falls City High 1932 15500 69
1265 0506 Central SD 13J POLK Centra l SD 13J Poyama Day treatment 17
1266 0506 Dallas SD 2 POLK Dallas 2 Polk Adolesc ent DTC 14
1267 0506 Sherman County SD SHERMAN Sherman 1J Sherman Jr/ Sr High 1956 1992 53082 145
1268 0506 Sherman County SD SHERMAN Sherman 1J North Sherman Elem 1916 1991 32180 72
1269 0506 Sherman County SD SHERMAN Sherman 1J South Sherman Elem 1991 31900 53
WASHINGTON Hillsborough 1J Comm Transition Servic es 23 1486 0506 Northwest Regional ESD WASHINGTON Northwest regiona l ESD R01 ESD Program at Groner Elem 23
1487 0506 Northwest Regional ESD WASHINGTON Northwest regiona l ESD R01 Lifeworks NW 19
Excluded Community College Buildings: Included Community College Buildings:
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
1 Blue Mtn Agriculture Complex >100 1975 N 9,835 1 Blue Mtn Emigrant Hall >250 1986 N 10,600
2 Blue Mtn Health Education >100 1971 N 8,700 2 Blue Mtn McCrae Act iv ity Center >250 1976 N 50,786
3 Blue Mtn Maintenance <100 1980 N 2,400 3 Blue Mtn Morrow Hall >250 1964 Y 39,214
4 Blue Mtn Umatilla Annex <100 1969 N 720 4 Blue Mtn Pioneer Hall >250 1970 Y 64,0525 Blue Mtn Branch Baker Modular <100 U N 1,240 5 Blue Mtn Science and Technology >250 2000 N 29,344
6 Blue Mtn Branch Boardman <100 U N 3,460 6 Blue Mtn Umatilla Hall >250 1969 N 34,398
7 Blue Mtn Branch Hermiston <250 1975 N 10,400 7 Central Oregon Bookstore >250 1994 N 10,400
8 Blue Mtn Branch Milton-Freewater >100 1977 Y 8,388 8 Central Oregon Boyle Educat ion Center >250 1989 N 38,454
9 Central Oregon Campus Services <250 1974 N 1,019 9 Central Oregon Cascades Hall >250 2002 N 38,245
10 Central Oregon Chandler Bldg. <250 1974 N 9,770 10 Central Oregon Grandview >250 1964 Y 25,722
11 Central Oregon Deschutes <250 1964 N 5,174 11 Central Oregon Juniper H. <250 1967 N 19,630
12 Central Oregon Jefferson <250 1964 N 5,122 12 Central Oregon Library >250 1997 N 72,250
13 Central Oregon Maintenance/Physical Plant <250 1974 N 17,788 13 Central Oregon Mazama >250 1971 N 36,114
14 Central Oregon Metolius <250 1965 N 8,402 14 Central Oregon Modoc (Old Library) >250 1966 N 16,389
15 Central Oregon Modular A <250 1974 N 1,019 15 Central Oregon Ochoco >250 1964 Y 33,050
16 Central Oregon Physiology Lab <250 1987 N 1,490 16 Central Oregon Pence >250 1967 Y 11,908
17 Central Oregon Ponderosa Annex <250 1974 N 1,019 17 Central Oregon Pinckney Ctr. >250 1983 N 14,931
18 Chemeketa AFS N. Salem and Distr ict Office (#0 >250 U U 40,517 18 Central Oregon Pioneer Hall >250 1976 N 24,752
19 Chemeketa Chi ld Development Center (#039) <100 U U 3,000 19 Central Oregon Ponderosa >250 1971 N 31,334
20 Chemeketa Classrooms (#030) <100 U U 3,610 20 Central Oregon-Redmo College Center - Redmond <250 1997 U 11,311
21 Chemeketa Construction Ski lls (#051) 11-100 93/99 U 9,750 21 Central Oregon-Redmo MATL - Redmond >250 2001 U 27,000
22 Chemeketa Cooperative Child Care (#041) <100 U U 1,708 22 Central Oregon-Redmo One Stop Building - Redmond <250 1998 U 13,788
23 Chemeketa CWE and Placement Services (#017 <100 U U 3,600 23 Chemeketa Admin/Classrooms (#022) 101-1000 1993 U 26,57524 Chemeketa ESL Office/Classrooms (#016) <100 U U 4,200 24 Chemeketa Bldg 50 (#050) 101-1000 1990 U 45,098
25 Chemeketa Fire Training Facil ity (#014) 11-100 1978 U 10,642 25 Chemeketa Bookstore/Staff (#001) 101-1000 1993 U 26,575
26 Chemeketa Fire Training Tower (#015) 11-100 1985 U 5,521 26 Chemeketa Health Sciences (#008) 101-1000 1978 U 71,340
27 Chemeketa Food Service (#034) 11-100 1972 U 9,923 27 Chemeketa Learning Resource (#009) 101-1000 1999 U 74,672
28 Chemeketa Greenhouse (#046) <100 U U 3,024 28 Chemeketa Maps Credit Union (#048) 101-1000 1993 U 17,150
29 Chemeketa Life Skills Classrooms (#023) <100 U U 3,610 29 Chemeketa Phase I/Classrooms (#003) 101-1000 1972 U 75,022
30 Chemeketa Machine Shop (#024) <250 U U 5,976 30 Chemeketa Phase III/Councel ing (#002) 101-1000 1976 U 83,218
31 Chemeketa Mai l Purchasing/Receiving (#033) <250 U U 7,200 31 Chemeketa Physical Education (#007) 101-1000 1981 U 67,826
32 Chemeketa Maintenance (#040) 11-100 1972 U 9,200 32 Chemeketa Technica l Skil ls (#005) 101-1000 1975 U 29,451
33 Chemeketa Math Lab/Classrooms (#037) <250 U U 5,280 33 Chemeketa Technology Building (#006) >250 1999 U 36,112
34 Chemeketa Mech. Industries (#025) 11-100 1970 U 11,789 34 Chemeketa Wilmeth Trade (#004) 101-1000 1975 U 59,378
35 Chemeketa Modular (#060) <100 U U 1,792 35 Chemeketa-Branch Dallas Academy (#107) 101-1000 1989 U 21,651
36 Chemeketa Modular (#061) <100 U U 1,792 36 Chemeketa-Branch EOLA - Viticulture >250 2003 U 12,613
37 Chemeketa Modular (#062) <100 U U 1,792 37 Chemeketa-Branch Santiam Center (#104) 101-1000 1992 U 22,521
38 Chemeketa Modular Classroom (#031) <100 U U 1,080 38 Chemeketa-Branch Woodburn Center - Lincoln St >250 2003 U 28,000
39 Chemeketa Modular Classroom (#032) <100 U U 3,820 39 Clackamas Art Center <250 1950 U 11,648
40 Chemeketa Modular Classroom (#052) <100 U U 1,080 40 Clackamas Barlow Hall >250 1970 U 100,819
41 Chemeketa Modular Classrooms (#026) <100 U U 2,400 41 Clackamas CCC-Harmony Rd >250 1901 U 27,44242 Chemeketa Modular Classrooms (#027) <100 U U 2,400 42 Clackamas CCC-Wilsonville <250 1991 U 50,000
43 Chemeketa Modular Classrooms (#028) <250 U U 6,136 43 Clackamas Clairmont Hall >250 1969 U 30,150
44 Chemeketa Northwest Center (#049) <250 U U 9,916 44 Clackamas Community Center >250 1975 U 29,000
45 Chemeketa Office/Classrooms (#019) <100 U U 3,120 45 Clackamas DeJardin Hall >250 2003 U 18,700
46 Chemeketa Paint Shop/Maintenance (#042) <100 U U 2,561 46 Clackamas Dye Learning Center >250 1992 U 29,215
47 Chemeketa Pole Building (#044) <100 U U 1,250 47 Clackamas Family Res. Center >250 1992 U 16,994
48 Chemeketa Red Barn (#054) <100 U U 1,382 48 Clackamas Gregory Forum >250 1992 U 10,200
49 Chemeketa Staff Offices (#018) <100 U U 1,920 49 Clackamas McLoughlin Hall >250 1972 U 53,900
50 Chemeketa Staff Offices (#020) <250 U U 6,670 50 Clackamas Niemeyer Center >250 2004 U 46,370
51 Chemeketa Staff Offices (#036) <100 U U 3,000 51 Clackamas Pauling Center >250 1981 U 40,430
52 Chemeketa Staff Offices (#038) <100 U U 4,320 52 Clackamas Randall Hall >250 1972 U 60,000
53 Chemeketa Sta ff Off ices/Classrooms (#029) <100 U U 4,834 53 Clackamas Roger Rook Hall >250 2003 U 30,000
54 Chemeketa Storage (#047) <100 U U 1,352 54 Clackamas Streeter Hall >250 1991 U 15,757
55 Chemeketa Support Services (#043) <250 U U 9,506 55 Clackamas Training Center >250 1994 U 18,385
56 Chemeketa White Barn (#0055) <100 U U 1,800 56 Clatsop Art Center >250 1979 N 16,534
57 Chemeketa Writing Center (#035) <100 U U 3,016 57 Clatsop Badollet Library >250 1965 N 17,900
58 Chemeketa-Branch Downtown Learning Center <100 U U 3,780 58 Clatsop Fertig Hall >250 1965 N 17,032
59 Chemeketa-Branch McMinnville bldg 1 (#101) 11-100 1982 U 7,200 59 Clatsop Industr ial and Manufactur ing >250 1998 U 30,000
60 Chemeketa-Branch McMinnvil le bldg 2 (#102) 11-100 U U 7,200 60 Clatsop Maritime Science Department >250 1996 U 13,60061 Chemeketa-Branch McMinnville Lease Property (#160) >250 1993 U 65,000 61 Clatsop Patriot/Towler Hall >250 1940 Y 37,708
62 Chemeketa-Branch TED Center <100 U U 4,495 62 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 1-Instruction >250 1963 N 77,386
63 Chemeketa-Branch Woodburn Center - Harrison <100 U U 4,998 63 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 2-Administration >250 1929 N 46,420
64 Chemeketa-Branch Woodburn IV - Modular <100 U U 912 64 Klamath Building 3 250 ~1935 N 16,000
65 Clackamas Env. Learning Center <250 1985 U 1,248 65 Klamath Building 4 750 2000 N 16,000
66 Clackamas Env. Learning Center <250 1978 U 931 66 Lane Administration >250 1968 N 17,907
67 Clackamas Greenhouses and Hoop House U U U U 67 Lane Air Technology >250 1968 N 35,014
68 Clackamas Lewelling Building <10 1968 U U 68 Lane Art/GED >250 1970 N 47,636
69 Clackamas Lindsley House U U U U 69 Lane Auto/Diesel Technology >250 1968 N 37,529
70 Clackamas Rainbow Building <10 U U U 70 Lane Business >250 1968 N 21,045
71 Clackamas Robbins House U U U U 71 Lane Campus Services >250 1975 Y 42,246
72 Clackamas Streeter Annex <250 2003 U 7,000 72 Lane College Center >250 1967 N 176,664
73 Clatsop Foundation <100 1931 U 2,280 73 Lane Electronics >100 1968 Y 18,414
74 Clatsop Maintenance/Physical Plant >100 1962 N 6,000 74 Lane Forum >250 1968 N 24,520
75 Clatsop South County Ctr. <100 1993 U 2,755 75 Lane Health Technology >250 1968 N 48,482
76 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 3-Instruction <250 1932 U 8,379 76 Lane Industrial Technology >250 1968 N 20,921
Appendix B Oregon Seismic Needs Assessment DOGAMI (June 2007)
Excluded Community College Buildings: Included Community College Buildings:
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
77 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 4-Instruction <250 1938 N 7,143 77 Lane Machine Technology >250 1970 N 59,658
78 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 5 - Future Building U U U U 78 Lane Performing Arts >250 1975 Y 48,156
79 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 6-Dormitory <250 1949 U 32,148 79 Lane Physical Ed. Complex >250 1968 N 87,992
80 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 7-Residence <250 1949 U 3,352 80 Lane Science >250 1968 Y 91,65581 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 8-Residence <250 1938 U 3,147 81 Lane Student Services >250 2001 U 37,477
82 Columbia Gorge Bldg. 9-Residence <250 1929 U 3,077 82 Lane Welding Technology >250 2000 U 20,593
83 Columbia Gorge Bldg.10-Residence <250 1954 U 2,004 83 Lane Workforce Training Center/Ap >250 1968 Y 87,888
84 Columbia Gorge Bldg.11-Storage <250 1936 U 10,472 84 Lane-Branch Cottage Grove Ct r (new) >250 1996 U 18,613
85 Columbia Gorge Bldg.12-Maintenance <250 1971 U 4,800 85 Lane-Branch Downtown Center >250 1977 N 56,508
86 Klamath Building 1 120 ~1935 N 4,000 86 Lane-Branch Florence Center >250 1976 U 15,827
87 Klamath Building 2 120 ~1935 N 4,000 87 Lane-Branch Wildish Building >250 1995 U 12,950
88 Klamath Building 5 8 New N 2,400 88 Linn-Benton Activity Center 101-1000 1975 U 40,774
89 Lane Apprenticeship Annex <100 1977 U 3,432 89 Linn-Benton Business U U U U
90 Lane Chemical Storage <100 1993 U 297 90 Linn-Benton College Center 101-1000 1973 U 54,591
91 Lane Childcare Center #1 <100 2000 U 2,967 91 Linn-Benton Health Occupations 101-1000 1973 U 16,698
92 Lane Childcare Center #2 <100 2000 U 3,273 92 Linn-Benton Industrial A 101-1000 1973 U 66,913
93 Lane Childcare Center #3 >100 2000 U 6,270 93 Linn-Benton Learning Resource Ctr. 101-1000 1973 U 34,038
94 Lane Childcare Center #4 <100 2000 U 4,264 94 Linn-Benton Luckiamute Center >100 2004 U U
95 Lane Comminutor Shed <100 2000 U 660 95 Linn-Benton Science and Technology 101-1000 1973 U 32,658
96 Lane Cooling Tower <100 1968 U 1,752 96 Linn-Benton Service Ctr. 11-100 1973 U 12,423
97 Lane Electronic Annex >100 1996 U 6,720 97 Linn-Benton South Santium Hall >100 1973 U U
98 Lane FM&P Nursery <100 2002 U 1,500 98 Linn-Benton Student Union Bldg. 101-1000 1973 U 17,716
99 Lane FM&P Storage <100 2000 U 2,240 99 Linn-Benton Takena Hall 101-1000 1979 U 50,387100 Lane Greenhouse <100 1968 U 240 100 Linn-Benton-Branch Benton Center orig built 1923 >250 2004 U U
101 Lane Old Day Care Modular <100 1989 U 1,848 101 Linn-Benton-Branch Lebanon Center >250 2002 U U
102 Lane PA Storage <100 1977 U 2,890 102 Linn-Benton-Branch Sweet Home Center U U U U
103 Lane PE Storage <100 1977 U 1,430 103 Mt Hood Academic Center >250 1970 Y 421,365
104 Lane Test Cells <100 1968 U 3,100 104 Mt Hood Bruning Center for Allied Heal >250 1976 N 63,054
105 Lane-Branch Aviation Maint. T raining >250 1995 U 23,400 105 Mt Hood Aquatic Center >250 1976 N 27,500
106 Lane-Branch Churchill CLC <100 1999 U 2,523 106 Mt Hood Child Development Center U U U U
107 Lane-Branch Cottage Grove Ctr(old) >100 1 984 U 7,900 107 Mt Hood GE Building U U U U
108 Lane-Branch Elmira CLC <100 2000 U 2,896 108 Mt Hood Gymnasium >250 1968 N 69355
109 Lane-Branch Flight Tech Center >100 1989 U 5,049 109 Mt Hood Horticulture and Fisheries <250 1975 N 12,200
110 Lane-Branch Flight Tech Hanger <100 1989 U 3,900 110 Mt Hood Industrial Technology >250 1968 N 45748
111 Lane-Branch Flight Tech Operations <100 1 940 U 3,640 111 Mt Hood Maywood U U U U
112 Lane-Branch Junction City CLC <100 2000 U 2,820 112 Mt Hood Visual Art Center Theatre U U U U
113 Lane-Branch McKenzie CLC <100 2000 U 2,893 113 Mt Hood Warehouse/Graphics Addition >250 1982 N 56,600
114 Lane-Branch Oakridge CLC <100 1999 U 2,720 114 Portland-Cascade Gymnasium >250 2004 U 31,882
115 Lane-Branch Siltcoos Station <100 1974 U 2,570 115 Portland-Cascade Jackson Hall 1,100 +/- 1985 Y 26,302
116 Lane-Branch Thurston CLC <100 1999 U 3,503 116 Portland-Cascade Library Addition >250 1994 U 34,000
117 Lane-Branch Willamette CLC <100 1999 U 2,527 117 Portland-Cascade Moriarty Arts and Humanities U U U U118 Linn-Benton Industrial B 11-100 1973 U U 118 Portland-Cascade Old Terrell Hall >100 1920's U 9,600
119 Linn-Benton Industrial C 11-100 1978 U U 119 Portland-Cascade Public Service 450 +/- 2003 U 28,400
120 Linn-Benton-Branch Horse Center U U U U 120 Portland-Cascade Student Center 1,500 +/- 1965 Y 22,563
121 Mt Hood GE Annex U U U U 121 Portland-Cascade Student Services 600 +/- 1996 U 34,000
122 Mt Hood Multnomah Cable Access <100 1984 N 5,000 122 Portland-Cascade Tech. Ed. 1,600 +/- 2004 U 50,500
123 Mt Hood Offices/Locker rms. U U U U 123 Portland-Cascade Terrell Hall 1,200 +/- 75/89 Y 35,642
124 Mt Hood Visual Arts Center U U U U 124 Portland-Rock Creek Building 2 2,000 +/- 1976 N 179,947
125 Oregon Coast North County Center <100 U U U 125 Portland-Rock Creek Building 3 1,200 +/- 1976 N 80,877
126 Portland-Cascade Portables >100 1997 U 5,600 126 Portland-Rock Creek Building 5 1,400 +/- 1982 N 47,067
127 Portland-Cascade Public Safety 5 1940 U U 127 Portland-Rock Creek Building 6 (hanger) 500 +/- 1979 Y 32,692
128 Portland-Rock Creek Building 1 <100 1976 U 16,200 128 Portland-Rock Creek Building 7 2,500 +/- 1996 U 62,500
129 Portland-Rock Creek Building 4 40 +/- 1993 N 2,640 129 Portland-Rock Creek Building 7 Addition U 2004 U 36,000
130 Portland-Rock Creek Building Construction U U U U 130 Portland-Rock Creek Building 9 Lib/Stud Serv 1,500 +/- 2004 U 72,000
131 Portland-Rock Creek Greenhouses U 1993 U 5,400 131 Portland-Sylvania Automotive/Metals 300 +/ - 1968 N 71,667
132 Portland-Rock Creek Pole Barn U 2004 U U 132 Portland-Sylvania Bookstore 200 +/- 1995 U 26,000
133 Portland-Rock Creek Shade House U 2006 U U 133 Portland-Sylvania College Center 1,200 +/- 1970 Y 181,582
134 Portland-Sylvania Heat Plant 0-10 1968 N 13,999 134 Portland-Sylvania Communication Tech. 800 +/- 1972 N 80,110
135 Rogue-Redwood Building A - Redwood 57 1965 U 1,710 135 Portland-Sylvania Health Tech. 3,000 +/- 1972 N 199,612
136 Rogue-Redwood Building B - Redwood 45 1965 U 1,455 136 Portland-Sylvania LRC 300 +/- 1994 U 65,165137 Rogue-Redwood Building C - Redwood 18 1965 U 1 ,859 137 Portland-Sylvania Science and Tech. 850 +/ - 1968 N 75,321
138 Rogue-Redwood Building D (Manufacture) - Redwood 56 1984 U 7,237 138 Portland-Sylvania Sculpture Studio U 2004 U U
139 Rogue-Redwood Building E (Science) - Redwood 153 1982 N 9,450 139 Portland-Sylvania Socia l Sci. and Tech. 950 +/- 1968 N 61,899
140 Rogue-Redwood Building F - Redwood 36 1965 U 3,037 140 Portland-Sylvania South Classroom B. 300 +/ - 1997 U 10,600
141 Rogue-Redwood Building G - Redwood 143 1965 U 3,325 141 Portland-Sylvania Technology Classroom 500 +/- 2004 U 46,394
142 Rogue-Redwood Building H - Redwood 141 1965 U 4,425 142 Rogue-Redwood Building U (Gym) - Redwood 494 1965 N 12,365
143 Rogue-Redwood Building I - Redwood 170 1965 U 3,310 143 Rogue-Redwood Café - Redwood 392 1965 U 10,292
144 Rogue-Redwood Building J - Redwood 171 1965 U 3,330 144 Rogue-Redwood Coats Hall - Redwood 417 1988 N 18,673
145 Rogue-Redwood Building K - Redwood 118 1965 U 3,097 145 Rogue-Redwood Firehouse Art Ctr./Small Bus. >250 1912 N 16,000
146 Rogue-Redwood Building L - Redwood 98 1965 U 5,356 146 Rogue-Redwood Wiseman Tutoring Ctr. - Red 414 1978 N 20,147
147 Rogue-Redwood Building M - Redwood 95 1965 U 4,497 147 Rogue-Riverside (Wards) G Building - Riversid 1,070 1928 N 34,125
148 Rogue-Redwood Building N - Redwood 50 1965 U 2 ,558 148 Rogue-Riverside Building A - Riverside 263 1946 N 13,980
149 Rogue-Redwood Building O (Faci li ties) - Redwood 14 1965 U 3,885 149 Rogue-Riverside Building B - Riverside 294 1939 N 13,373
150 Rogue-Redwood Building P - Redwood 35 1965 U 1,081 150 Rogue-Riverside Building D - Riverside 285 1968 U 8,673
151 Rogue-Redwood Building Q - Redwood 9 1965 U 1,041 151 Rogue-Riverside K Building - Riverside 303 1940 U 8,565
152 Rogue-Redwood Building R - Redwood 236 1975 U 3,615 152 Rogue-Table Rock Crater Lake Center 347 U U 12,682
Appendix B Oregon Seismic Needs Assessment DOGAMI (June 2007)
Excluded Community College Buildings: Included Community College Buildings:
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
Campus B U I L D I N G N
A M E
O C C U P A N C Y
Y E A R
B U I L T
M A J O R
A D D I T I O N S
B U I L D I N G A
R E A
( G S F )
153 Rogue-Redwood Building S (Automotive) - Redwood 152 1976 U 11,256 153 Rogue-Table Rock Table Rock Campus 2,019 1979 Y 105,230
154 Rogue-Redwood Building T - Redwood 111 1973 U 2,585 154 Rogue-Table Rock Workforce Training Ct r. 348 1942 N 13,627
155 Rogue-Redwood Building V - Redwood 41 1965 U 12,365 155 Southwest Or Coaledo Hall >250 1965 N 9,800
156 Rogue-Redwood Building Y (Welding) - Redwood 117 1982 U 10,700 156 Southwest Or Eden Hall U 1982 U U157 Rogue-Redwood Facilities Office - Redwood 17 1965 U 978 157 Southwest Or Empire Hall (PAC) >250 1980 Y 17,189
158 Rogue-Redwood IVLC - Redwood 160 1946 U 10,604 158 Southwest Or Fairview Hall U 1982 U U
159 Rogue-Redwood Josephine Bui lding - Redwood 83 1965 U 3,274 159 Southwest Or Newmark Center U 1996 U U
160 Rogue-Redwood Josephine Pod 1 - Redwood 17 1995 U 960 160 Southwest Or Prosper Hall >250 1967 N 25,835
161 Rogue-Redwood Josephine Pod 2 - Redwood 23 1995 U 857 161 Southwest Or Randolph Hall >250 1964 N 12,836
162 Rogue-Redwood Student Services - Redwood 75 1978 U 4,747 162 Southwest Or Sitkum Hall >250 1965 N 10,240
163 Rogue-Riverside Building C - Riverside 47 1944 U 3,568 163 Southwest Or Stensland Hall U 1995 U U
164 Rogue-Riverside Building E - Riverside 152 1949 N 4,229 164 Southwest Or Tioga Hall >250 1969 N 56,144
165 Rogue-Riverside Building F - Riverside 145 1949 N 4,708 165 Treasure Valley Administration Bldg. 840 1965 N 24,021
166 Rogue-Riverside H Building - Riverside 175 1951 N 3,500 166 Treasure Valley Easley Memorial Gymnasium 2000 1968 N 45,585
167 Southwest Or B-2 U U U U 167 Treasure Valley Four Rivers Cul tural Ctr . 297 1996 U 8,472
168 Southwest Or B-3 Storage U U U U 168 Treasure Valley Malheur Dormitory 271 1968 N 19,360
169 Southwest Or Cape Arago U U U U 169 Treasure Valley Oregon Trail Building 299 1965 N 8,549
170 Southwest Or Cape Blanco U U U U 170 Treasure Valley Tech Lab Building 345 1970 N 9,856
171 Southwest Or Cape Meares U U U U 171 Treasure Valley Weese Building 333 1966 N 23,788
172 Southwest Or Coquille River U U U U 172 Umpqua Campus Center 101-1000 1970 U 25,200
173 Southwest Or Dellwood Hall <100 1965 N 9,375 173 Umpqua Ed. Ski lls Bui lding 101-1000 1979 U 10,813
174 Southwest Or Desdemona Sands U U U U 174 Umpqua Gym/PE Complex 101-1000 1970 U 17,068
175 Southwest Or Family Center U 1997 U U 175 Umpqua Jacoby Auditorium 1000+ 1970 U 26,849176 Southwest Or Farm Svc/Child Care U U U U 176 Umpqua Library >100 1967 U U
177 Southwest Or Field House U U U U 177 Umpqua Science 101-1000 1966 U 13,071
178 Southwest Or Fire Science U U U U 178 Umpqua Wayne Crooch Hal l 101-1000 1968 U 13,504
179 Southwest Or Fire Tower U U U U 179 Umpqua Whipple Fine Arts >250 1979 U U
180 Southwest Or Heceta Head U U U U
181 Southwest Or Lampa Hall U 1982 U U
182 Southwest Or Lighthouse Depot U 1997 U U
183 Southwest Or North Head U U U U
184 Southwest Or Offices U U U U
185 Southwest Or Plant Svc/Maint. U 1965 U U
186 Southwest Or Point Adams U U U U
187 Southwest Or St. George Reef U U U U
188 Southwest Or Sumner Hall <100 1982 N 8,440
189 Southwest Or Sunset Hall U 1982 U U
190 Southwest Or Tillamook Rock U U U U
191 Southwest Or Umpqua Hall <100 1964 N 11,680
192 Southwest Or Umpqua River U U U U
193 Southwest Or Warrior Rock U U U U
194 Southwest Or Willamette River U U U U
195 Southwest Or Yaquina Head U U U U
196 Tillamook Bay TBCC Bay City 40 1960 N 3,432
197 Tillamook Bay TBCC First Street 57 1948 N 11,800
198 Tillamook Bay TBCC, Wilson 65 1930 N 7,336
199 Treasure Valley Albertson Center 210 1970 U 7,173
200 Treasure Valley Art Building 127 1947 N 5,467
201 Treasure Valley Burns Outreach Center U U U U
202 Treasure Valley ITC Computer Lab 44 1967 U 1,250
203 Treasure Valley Lakeview Outreach Center U U U U
204 Treasure Valley Maintenance/Print Shop 152 1974 N 15,260
205 Treasure Valley Owyhee Dormitory 271 1968 U 19,360
206 Treasure Valley Residence Hall 2006
207 Treasure Valley Student Services 48 1996 U 6,944
208 Treasure Valley Voc-Tech Building 206 1965 N 14,779
209 Treasure Valley Workforce Training Ctr. 206 1980 N 4,788
210 Umpqua Administra tion Bldg. 11-100 1 967 U U
211 Umpqua Ford Family Center U New U U
212 Umpqua Jackson Hall 101-1000 1970 U 8,876213 Umpqua Lockwood Hall 11-100 1969 U U
214 Umpqua Snyder Hall 101-1000 1966 U 7,164
215 Umpqua Technology Center U New U U
216 Umpqua Warehouse 11-100 1972 U U
Appendix B Oregon Seismic Needs Assessment DOGAMI (June 2007)
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Appendix I
APPENDIX I. SPREADSHEET AND SITE SUMMARY REPORT DATA FIELD DEFINITIONSThis appendix contains keys to the column headings in the SSNA-all-data.xls (Excel) spreadsheet file andthe SSNA-abridged-data.xls file.
SSNA-all-data.xls
Site_UniqueID Unique ID assigned by DOGAMI for each siteBuildingUniqueID Unique ID assigned by DOGAMI for each building entitySite_Type Major use of the building
Tracking_Code Code utilized for site tracking of various categoriesDistrict District authority name
Name Building nameField_Physical_Address Physical street address
Field_Physical_City CityGPS_X Latitude
GPS_Y LongitudeMaxOccupancy Maximum occupancyEnrollment_ODE Actual October 2005 enrollment from Oregon Department of
Education
Screener_Name Name of person collecting field data
InspectionDate Date field data was collectedField_Verified_Year_Built Construction date as indicated by plaque encountered in thefield
Estimated_Decade_Built Screener estimate of construction period, to nearest decadestart
Year_Built Data from ODE database and other sourcesNumber_Stories Number of stories above ground level
Building_Total_Area Total Area square feetComments Special notation by screenerSeismicityZone Seismic zones (low, moderate, high) defined by FEMA 154
and very high defined as 60% g on the 1.0 second spectralacceleration 2% probability of exceedance in 50 yearsUSGS seismic hazard map
Primary_Structural_Type The field screener’s best judgment of Building StructuralType as defined by FEMA 154Primary_Structural_Certainty_Type Field screener confidence in assigned primary structural
type ( in percent)Secondary_Structural_Type The field screener’s second best judgment of Building
Structural Type as defined by FEMA 154
Secondary_Structural_Certainty_Type Field screener coarse confidence in assigned secondarystructural type ( in percent)
Tertiary_Structural_Type The field screener’s third best judgment of BuildingStructural Type as defined by FEMA 154
Tertiary_Structural_Certainty_Type Field screener confidence in assigned tertiary structural type(in percent)
Poor_Condition_Primary Screener’s notations of poor condition
Pounding_Potential Possibility of building swaying during earthquake intoadjacent structures
Falling_Hazard_Primary Potential falling hazards during earthquakeVertical_Irregularity_Primary Vertical irregularity as defined by DOGAMI 2006 vertical and
plan irregularities definition documentPlan_Irregularity_Primary Plan irregularity as defined by DOGAMI 2006 vertical and
plan irregularities definition documentPoor_Condition_Secondary Additional noted poor condition
Plan_Irregularity_Secondary Additional plan irregularity
Plan_Irregularity_Tertiary Additional plan irregularityPlan_Irregularity_Severity_Primary Plan irregularity severityPlan_Irregularity_Severity_Secondary Plan irregularity severity
Plan_Irregularity_Severity_Tertiary Plan irregularity severitySoil_Type Site soil classification from 1997 NEHRP ProvisionsType_1 Duplicate of Primary_Structural_Type fieldBasic_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for Primary_Structural_Type
VertIrr_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for Vertical_Irregularity_Primaryfield
PlanIrr_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for Plan_Irregularity_Primary field
Precode_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for construction built prior toFEMA default precode year of 1941
PostBench_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for post benchmark construction
date as defined in Table 8C_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for C type Site ClassesD_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for D type Site Classes
E_1 FEMA 154 numeric value for E type Site ClassesRVS_1 FEMA 154 score for the Primary_Structural_TypeType_2 Duplicate of Secondary_Structural_Type field
Basic_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for Secondary_Structural_TypeVertIrr_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for
Vertical_Irregularity_Secondary field
PlanIrr_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for Plan_Irregularity_Secondaryfield
Precode_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for construction built prior toFEMA default precode year of 1941
PostBench_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for post benchmark constructiondate as defined in Table 8
C_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for C type Site Classes
D_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for D type Site ClassesE_2 FEMA 154 numeric value for E type Site Classes
RVS_2 FEMA 154 score for the Secondary_Structural_TypeType_3 Duplicate of Tertiary_Structural_Type fieldBasic_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for Tertiary_Structural_Type
VertIrr_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for Vertical_Irregularity_Tertiaryfield
PlanIrr_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for Plan_Irregularity_Tertiary fieldPrecode_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for construction built prior to
FEMA default precode year of 1941
PostBench_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for post benchmark constructiondate as defined in Table 8
C_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for C type Site ClassesD_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for D type Site Classes
E_3 FEMA 154 numeric value for E type Site ClassesRVS_3 FEMA 154 score for the Teriary_Structural_TypeFinal_Type Structural type with lowest FEMA RVS scoreRVS_F FEMA 154 RVS score that was the lowest
Collapse_Potential A RVS score of 2.0 represents that there is a 1 in 100chance, or 1% probability, that the building will collapse due
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Appendix I
to the ground motion caused by the maximum consideredearthquake. A score of 0.0 implies a 1 in 1 chance, or a100% probability. FEMA recommends that all buildings witha score of 2.0 or less should be considered to haveinadequate performance during the anticipated maximumseismic event. DOGAMI has refined the relative rank of theRVS scores into four categories: Very High (RVS less thanor equal to zero, 100% probability of collapse), High (RVS
from 0.1 to 1.0; greater than a 10% probability of collapse),Moderate (RVS from 1.1 to 2.0, greater than a 1%probability of collapse), and Low (RVS greater than or equalto 2.1, probability of collapse less than 1%). Newconstruction is deemed to have low collapse potential. Sitesthat have been or are planned to have seismic rehabilitationare deemed to have moderate collapse potential. Sites thatwere missed during the filed screening are deemed to havehigh collapse potential.
PDF Site Summary Report Web link site data report for all building screened atparticular site. Contains descriptive data, locationinformation, screener comments, photos, RVS scores, andplan views for each building. A site may have multiple
building entities designated by suffix A, B, C etc. Allindividual building reports are bundled into a single sitesummary report.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Appendix I
SSNA-abridged-data.xls
Site_UniqueID Unique ID assigned by DOGAMI for each site
BuildingUniqueID Unique ID assigned by DOGAMI for each building entityDOGAMI Tracking_Code Code utilized for site tracking of various categoriesSite_Type Major use of the building
District District authority nameFacility Name Building name
Address Physical street addressCity City
Latitude GPS_X LatitudeLongitude GPS_Y LongitudeODE 05-06 Enrollment Actual October 2005 enrollment from Oregon Department of
Education
Field Plaque Construction date as indicated by plaque encountered in thefield
Estimated Decade Screener estimate of construction period, to nearest decadestart
Year Built Data from ODE database and other sourcesBuilding Area Total Area square feet
USGS Seismicity Seismic zones (low, moderate, high) defined by FEMA 154 andvery high defined as 60% g on the 1.0 second spectralacceleration 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years USGSseismic hazard map
NEHRP Soil Site soil classification from 1997 NEHRP Provisions
Final Type Structural type with lowest FEMA RVS scoreFinal RVS FEMA 154 RVS score that was the lowest
Collapse_Potential A RVS score of 2.0 represents that there is a 1 in 100 chance,or 1% probability, that the building will collapse due to theground motion caused by the maximum considered earthquake.A score of 0.0 implies a 1 in 1 chance, or a 100% probability.FEMA recommends that all buildings with a score of 2.0 or lessshould be considered to have inadequate performance duringthe anticipated maximum seismic event. DOGAMI has refinedthe relative rank of the RVS scores into four categories: VeryHigh (RVS less than or equal to zero, 100% probability ofcollapse), High (RVS from 0.1 to 1.0; greater than a 10%probability of collapse), Moderate (RVS from 1.1 to 2.0, greaterthan a 1% probability of collapse), and Low (RVS greater thanor equal to 2.1, probability of collapse less than 1%). Newconstruction is deemed to have low collapse potential. Sitesthat have been or are planned to have seismic rehabilitation aredeemed to have moderate collapse potential. Sites that weremissed during the filed screening are deemed to have highcollapse potential.
PDF Site Summary Report Web link site data report for all building screened at particularsite. Contains descriptive data, location information, screener
comments, photos, RVS scores, and plan views for eachbuilding. A site may have multiple building entities designatedby suffix A, B, C etc. All individual building reports are bundledinto a single site summary report.
Oregon Senate Bill 2 directs DOGAMI, in consultation with project partners (see below), to develop a statewideseismic needs assessment that includes seismic safety surveys of K-12 public school buildings and communitycollege buildings that have a capacity of 250 or more persons, hospital buildings with acute inpatient carefacilities, fire stations, police stations, sheriffs' offices and other law enforcement agency buildings.
The statewide needs assessment will consist of rapid visual screenings (RVS) of these buildings in accordancewith FEMA-154, 2002 Edition, or an equivalent standard adopted by DOGAMI; information gathering tosupplement RVS; and ranking of RVS results into risk categories. The results will be posted on a publiclyaccessible web site.
Rapid Visual Screening-All Rapid Visual screenings will follow the procedures discussed in FEMA 154 Edition 2,July 2005. The manual for Rapid Visual Screening using FEMA 154 is provided in each computer system to useas a reference.
Checklist of equipment Please treat all equipment with care.
• Notebook of Planviews, lists of sites/buildings including Multi-buildings school information
• Vest
• Clip board
• Tablet with stylus- Make and Model, screen protector, black tablet holder,
• Logitech QuickCam for Notebook Pro
• Printer- HP and Model with power supply, printer manual one replacement cartridge for black and color and paper
• 2- Bonzai Secure Digital cards with one USB Flash Drive
• GPS unit
• Surge Protector
• Auto/Air Adapter- Power2
• Personal Cell Phone
• FEMA 155 manual
• USB Cable
• Duracell battery charger with batteries
• 1 black and 1 yellow Modem cords
Each team leader (Carol Hasenberg, Tom Miller and Christine Theodoropoulos) will assure that allequipment listed above is returned in good working order to DOGAMI
Equipment breakdowns- If your computer breaks down in the field, call DOGAMI. If we need to
provide a backup, FED Ex it in computer appropriate packaging back to DOGAMI care of:Natalie Richards, PE
DOGAMI will FED EX a backup computer we have and fix the other. If there is no backup available,conduct RVS surveys using paper the forms provided then they will have to be input into the database at
a later date.
Once a backup is available, DOGAMI will contact you about getting you the computer equipment.
It is very important to treat the computers as fragile and important equipment.
• Do not leave them at a eating establishment,
• Do not place them in adverse conditions either hot or cold,
•
Do not eat or drink close to them to prevent something spilling on them
• Please use common sense and treat them as if they were your own equipment.
Information that needs to be downloaded onto tablets-
• Maps-o County
o Cityo Planviews
• RVS Protocol Handbook
• Travel/Misc Voucher for cell phones and disposable camera
Please keep the receipt for the disposable camera and provide it on the cell phone miscellaneous voucher
for reimbursement.
The GPS unit can be used in the rain so the coordinates can be acquired and written down on the tablet
form.
This screening can also be completed in your car along with photographs if they are easy to decipher.
RAPID VISUAL SURVEY PROCEDURE
1.0 Site Info – General setup
When you first get to a site, turn on the GPS unit, set it on the dashboard or the hood of the car (but out
from under trees), and let it acquire satellites (it sometimes takes the unit ~10 min to acquire thesatellites and then get the accuracy down to 20 ft. or less). Once the GPS unit has gone through it’s boot
up screens and satellites are acquired and accuracy to 20ft or less, the screen will look like the example
in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Example of GPS screen after boot-up.
Get out the paper Plan View Map (air photo of the site, Figure 2). Find your location and identify thebuilding, buildings, and/or building entities to be surveyed. Review the additional information (building
construction dates, etc Figure 3), which will be similar to example below and finalize the identification
of the buildings/entities to be surveyed.
Establish a plan of surveying. Take a quick walk around the site and identify all the buildings/entities
which will be surveyed. Outline each of the areas in pencil or visually on the plan view map (see
example in Figure 3 with yellow outlines of buildings).
Figure 3: Plan view map or air photo of the site with buildings/entities to be surveyed outlined in yellow
and additional information table.
Turn on the computer tablet, open the access database (shortcut on the desktop).
In the main RVS screen select “NEW RVS”. The first page of an empty form will come up on your
screen.
1.1 Verify-Enter Site Information
OPEN TAB: Site/Building Info
Find the Unique Site ID box (at the top along the upper tool bar) and toggle down to yourpresent site location (ex. Mult_sch63). Make sure that the site ID number on the form matches
the site ID number on the Plan View Map. Confirm that the Site Name, Site Street Address,Site City boxes all contain the correct information. If it isn’t correct, then correct the
information.
Collect the GPS reading (see GPS procedure for details) for SITE at the main intersection of the
main street and the entrance to the site. This should also be the most likely location for the site’spostal street address as shown in Figure 4 (ex: the intersection of the main street and the front
sidewalk, the intersection of the main entrance driveway to the campus, see example below with
Turn the GPS unit on as the first thing that you do when you arrive at a site. The GPS will automatically
go through several screens about warnings, etc and then end up on the Satellite screen (see example
below). This screen will tell you how many satellites the unit current has connected and the strength of the signal. Wait until the Accuracy reading is down around 20’ or less. That is about as good as the
reading will ever get.
To collect a GPS point and input it into the database, you need three numbers: Point ID, GPS X(E-W), and GPS Y (N-S).
TBDThe Point Id is automatically numbered by the Etrex GPS unit.
In the main menu, scroll up to “Mark” and click in/select.
Now you will be looking at the current Etrex automatically chosen Point ID at the top in the flag thatthe little man/person is holding. At the bottom of the screen you will see a display of the current
longitude location information (GPS Y (ex. N 45.52899) and GPS X (ex. W 122.65733)).
Now, on the computer tablet in the access database type in the new Point ID and the X (E-W) and Y (N-
S) coordinates that you see at the bottom of the little man screen. Please record the number to 4 placesbeyond the decimal point (ex. 122.2342). That will give us sufficient data to plot an accurate location.
Back on the GPS unit, scroll down to OK (at the bottom) of the little man screen and click in/select.This will save the point to the memory of the GPS, and it can be downloaded later as a backup to the
To get back to the Satellite screen on the GPS, just use the mouse to scroll up to the top menu bar and
click/select the mulitpage looking icon and scroll down to Satellite. To get between the Main andSatelitte screens you can also use the upper right hand button to toggle through all the primary screens
The GPS units also come with an instruction booklet if you want to read about reviewing the saved GPS
points and about deleting GPS points that you recorded by mistake.
PROJECT ADVISORY PANELThalia AnagnosJohn BaalsJames CagleyMelvyn GreenTerry HughesAnne S. KiremidjianJoan MacQuarrieChris D. PolandLawrence D. ReaveleyDoug Smits
Ted Winstead
CONSULTANTSKent M. DavidWilliam T. HolmesStephanie A. KingKeith Porter Vincent PrabisRichard Ranous Nilesh Shome
ATC STAFFA. Gerald BradyPeter N. Mork Bernadette A. MosbyMichelle S. Schwartzbach
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is anonprofit, tax-exempt corporation established in1971 through the efforts of the Structural EngineersAssociation of California. ATC’s mission is todevelop state-of-the-art, user-friendly engineeringresources and applications for use in mitigating the
effects of natural and other hazards on the builtenvironment. ATC also identifies and encouragesneeded research and develops consensus opinionson structural engineering issues in a non- proprietary format. ATC thereby fulfills a uniquerole in funded information transfer.
ATC is guided by a Board of Directorsconsisting of representatives appointed by theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, the NationalCouncil of Structural Engineers Associations, the
Structural Engineers Association of California, theWestern Council of Structural EngineersAssociations, and four at-large representativesconcerned with the practice of structuralengineering. Each director serves a three-year term.
Project management and administration are
carried out by a full-time Executive Director andsupport staff. Project work is conducted by a widerange of highly qualified consulting professionals,thus incorporating the experience of manyindividuals from academia, research, and professional practice who would not be availablefrom any single organization. Funding for ATC projects is obtained from government agencies andfrom the private sector in the form of tax-deductiblecontributions.
2001-2002 Board of Directors
Andrew T. Merovich, PresidentJames R. Cagley, Vice PresidentStephen H. Pelham, Secretary/Treasurer Arthur N. L. Chiu, Past PresidentSteven M. BaldridgePatrick Buscovich Anthony B. CourtEdwin T. DeanJames M. DelahayMelvyn GreenRichard L. HessChristopher P. JonesMaryann T. Phipps
Lawrence D. Reaveley
ATC DISCLAIMER
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, ATC and the sponsoring
agency assume no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The materials presented in this publication should not be used or relied upon for any specific application withoutcompetent examination and verification of itsaccuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from suchuse.
(FEMA) is pleased to present the second edition of the widely used Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook , and its companion, Supporting Documentation. The policy of improving reportsand manuals that deal with the seismic safety of existing buildings as soon as new information andadequate resources are available is thus beingreaffirmed. Users should take note of some major differences between the two editions of the Handbook . The technical content of the newedition is based more on experiential data and lesson expert judgment than was the case in the earlier
edition, as is explained in the Supporting Documentation. From the presentational point of view, the Handbook retains much of the materialof the earlier edition, but the material has beenrather thoroughly rearranged to further facilitatethe step-by-step process of conducting the rapidvisual screening of a building. By far the mostsignificant difference between the two editions,
however, is the need for a higher level of
engineering understanding and expertise on the part of the users of the second edition. This shifthas been caused primarily by the difficultyexperienced by users of the first edition inidentifying the lateral-force-resisting system of a building without entry—a critical decision of therapid visual screening process. The contents of the Supporting Documentation volume have also
been enriched to reflect the technical advances inthe Handbook .
FEMA and the Project Officer wish to expresstheir gratitude to the members of the ProjectAdvisory Panel, to the technical and workshop
consultants, to the project management, and to thereport production and editing staff for their expertise and dedication in the upgrading of thesetwo volumes.
Management Agency (FEMA) awarded theApplied Technology Council (ATC) a two-year contract to update the FEMA 154 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook , and thecompanion FEMA-155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation, both of which were originally published in 1988.
The impetus for the project stemmed in partfrom the general recommendation in the FEMA315 report, Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings:Strategic Plan 2005, to update periodically all
existing reports in the FEMA-developed series onthe seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings. In addition, a vast amount of information had been developed since 1988,including: (1) new knowledge about the performance of buildings during damagingearthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta and1994 Northridge earthquakes; (2) new knowledgeabout seismic hazards, including updated nationalseismic hazard maps published by the U. S.Geological Survey in 1996; (3) other new seismicevaluation and damage prediction tools, such asthe FEMA 310 report, Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Buildings – a Prestandard , (anupdated version of FEMA 178, NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings),and HAZUS, FEMA’s tool for estimating potentiallosses from natural disasters; and (4) experiencefrom the widespread use of the original FEMA154 Handbook by federal, state and municipalagencies, and others.
The project included the following tasks:(1) an effort to obtain users feedback, which wasexecuted through the distribution of a voluntaryFEMA 154 Users Feedback Form to organizations
that had ordered or were known to have usedFEMA 154 (the Feedback Form was also postedon ATC’s web site); (2) a review of availableinformation on the seismic performance of buildings, including a detailed review of theHAZUS fragility curves and an effort to correlatethe relationship between results from the use of both the FEMA 154 rapid visual screening procedure and the FEMA 178 detailed seismicevaluation procedures on the same buildings;
(3) a Users Workshop midway in the project to
learn first hand the problems and successes of organizations that had used the rapid visualscreening procedure on buildings under their jurisdiction; (4) updating of the original FEMA154 Handbook to create the second edition; and(5) updating of the original FEMA 155 Supporting Documentation report to create the second edition.
This second edition of the FEMA 154 Handbook provides a standard rapid visualscreening procedure to identify, inventory, andrank buildings that are potentially seismicallyhazardous. The scoring system has been revised, based on new information, and the Handbook has
been shortened and focused to facilitateimplementation. The technical basis for the rapidvisual screening procedure, including a summaryof results from the efforts to solicit user feedback,is documented in the companion second edition of the FEMA 155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards:Supporting Documentation.
ATC gratefully acknowledges the personnelinvolved in developing the second editions of theFEMA 154 and FEMA 155 reports. CharlesScawthorn served as Co-Principal Investigator andProject Director. He was assisted by Kent David,
Vincent Prabis, Richard A. Ranous, and NileshShome, who served as Technical Consultants.Members of the Project Advisory Panel, who provided overall review and guidance for the project, were: Thalia Anagnos, John Baals, JamesR. Cagley (ATC Board Representative), MelvynGreen, Terry Hughes, Anne S. Kiremidjian, JoanMacQuarrie, Chris D. Poland, Lawrence D.Reaveley, Doug Smits, and Ted Winstead.William T. Holmes served as facilitator for theUsers Workshop, and Keith Porter served asrecorder. Stephanie A. King verified the Basic
Structural Hazard Scores and the Score Modifiers.A. Gerald Brady, Peter N. Mork, and MichelleSchwartzbach provided report editing and production services. The affiliations of theseindividuals are provided in the list of project participants.
ATC also gratefully acknowledges thevaluable assistance, support, and cooperation provided by Ugo Morelli, FEMA Project Officer.In addition, ATC acknowledges participants in the
FEMA 154 Users Workshop, which included, inaddition to the project personnel listed above, thefollowing individuals: Al Berstein, U. S. Bureauof Reclamation; Amitabha Datta, General ServicesAdministration; Ben Emam, Amazon.com;Richard K. Eisner, California Office of EmergencyServices; Ali Fattah, City of San Diego; BrianKehoe, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc.;
David Leung, City and County of San Francisco;Douglas McCall, Marx/Okubo; Richard Silva, National Park Service; Howard Simpson, Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc.; Steven Sweeney, U. S.Army Civil Engineering Research Laboratory;Christine Theodooropoulos, University of Oregon;and Zan Turner, City and County of SanFrancisco. Those persons who responded toATC’s request to complete the voluntary FEMA154 Users Feedback form are also gratefullyacknowledged.
Christopher Rojahn, Principal Investigator ATC Executive Director
This FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook, is the first of a two-volume publicationon a recommended methodology for rapid visualscreening of buildings for potential seismichazards. The technical basis for the methodology,including the scoring system and its development,are contained in the companion FEMA 155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation.Both this document and the companion documentare second editions of similar documents published by FEMA in 1988.
The rapid visual screening procedure (RVS)has been developed for a broad audience,
including building officials and inspectors, andgovernment agency and private-sector buildingowners (hereinafter, the "RVS authority"), toidentify, inventory, and rank buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous. Although RVSis applicable to all buildings, its principal purposeis to identify (1) older buildings designed andconstructed before the adoption of adequateseismic design and detailing requirements, (2) buildings on soft or poor soils, or (3) buildingshaving performance characteristics that negativelyinfluence their seismic response. Once identifiedas potentially hazardous, such buildings should be
further evaluated by a design professionalexperienced in seismic design to determine if, infact, they are seismically hazardous.
The RVS uses a methodology based on a“sidewalk survey” of a building and a DataCollection Form, which the person conducting thesurvey (hereafter referred to as the screener)completes, based on visual observation of the building from the exterior, and if possible, theinterior. The Data Collection Form includes spacefor documenting building identificationinformation, including its use and size, a
photograph of the building, sketches, anddocumentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance, including the development of anumeric seismic hazard score.
Once the decision to conduct rapid visualscreening for a community or group of buildingshas been made by the RVS authority, thescreening effort can be expedited by pre-planning,including the training of screeners, and carefuloverall management of the process.
Completion of the Data Collection Form in thefield begins with identifying the primary structural
lateral-load-resisting system and structuralmaterials of the building. Basic Structural HazardScores for various building types are provided onthe form, and the screener circles the appropriateone. For many buildings, viewed only from theexterior, this important decision requires thescreener to be trained and experienced in buildingconstruction. The screener modifies the BasicStructural Hazard Score by identifying andcircling Score Modifiers, which are related toobserved performance attributes, and which arethen added (or subtracted) to the Basic StructuralHazard Score to arrive at a final Structural Score,
S . The Basic Structural Hazard Score, ScoreModifiers, and final Structural Score, S , all relateto the probability of building collapse, shouldsevere ground shaking occur (that is, a groundshaking level equivalent to that currently used inthe seismic design of new buildings). Final S scores typically range from 0 to 7, with higher S scores corresponding to better expected seismic performance.
Use of the RVS on a community-wide basisenables the RVS authority to divide screened buildings into two categories: those that areexpected to have acceptable seismic performance,
and those that may be seismically hazardous andshould be studied further. An S score of 2 issuggested as a “cut-off”, based on present seismicdesign criteria. Using this cut-off level, buildingshaving an S score of 2 or less should beinvestigated by a design professional experiencedin seismic design.
The procedure presented in this Handbook ismeant to be the preliminary screening phase of amulti-phase procedure for identifying potentiallyhazardous buildings. Buildings identified by this procedure must be analyzed in more detail by an
experienced seismic design professional. Becauserapid visual screening is designed to be performedfrom the street, with interior inspection not always possible, hazardous details will not always bevisible, and seismically hazardous buildings maynot be identified as such. Conversely, buildingsinitially identified as potentially hazardous byRVS may prove to be adequate.
FEMA Foreword................................................................................................................................................ iii
Summary and Application ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................xix
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................11.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................11.2 Screening Procedure Purpose, Overview, and Scope ..........................................................................21.3 Companion FEMA 155 Report............................................................................................................31.4 Relationship of FEMA 154 to Other Documents in the FEMA Existing Building Series ..................4
1.5 Uses of RVS Survey Results ...............................................................................................................41.6 How to Use this Handbook..................................................................................................................4
2. Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening..........................................................................................52.1 Screening Implementation Sequence...................................................................................................52.2 Budget Development and Cost Estimation..........................................................................................62.3 Pre-Field Planning ...............................................................................................................................62.4 Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form ............................................................................7
2.4.1 Determination of Seismicity Region ......................................................................................82.4.2 Determination of Key Seismic Code Adoption Dates and Other Considerations ..................82.4.3 Determination of Cut-Off Score ...........................................................................................10
2.5 Qualifications and Training for Screeners .........................................................................................112.6 Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data........................................................................................11
2.6.1 Assessor’s Files ....................................................................................................................112.6.2 Building Department Files....................................................................................................122.6.3 Sanborn Maps.......................................................................................................................122.6.4 Municipal Databases.............................................................................................................152.6.5 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................152.6.6 Soils Information..................................................................................................................15
2.7 Review of Construction Documents..................................................................................................172.8 Field Screening of Buildings .............................................................................................................182.9 Checking the Quality and Filing the Field Data in the Record-Keeping System ..............................18
3. Completing the Data Collection Form ........................................................................................................193.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................193.2 Verifying and Updating the Building Identification Information......................................................20
3.2.1 Number of Stories.................................................................................................................203.2.2 Year Built .............................................................................................................................203.2.3 Screener Identification..........................................................................................................203.2.4 Total Floor Area ...................................................................................................................21
3.3 Sketching the Plan and Elevation Views ...........................................................................................213.4 Determining Soil Type ......................................................................................................................213.5 Determining and Documenting Occupancy.......................................................................................22
3.6 Identifying Potential Nonstructural Falling Hazards .........................................................................233.7 Identifying the Lateral-Load-Resisting System and Documenting the Related Basic
Structural Score .................................................................................................................................243.7.1 Fifteen Building Types Considered by the RVS Procedure and Related Basic
Structural Scores...................................................................................................................243.7.2 Identifying the Lateral-Force-Resisting System...................................................................253.7.3 Interior Inspections...............................................................................................................363.7.4 Screening Buildings with More Than One Lateral-Force Resisting System........................37
3.8 Identifying Seismic Performance Attributes and Recording Score Modifiers ..................................383.8.1 Mid-Rise Buildings...............................................................................................................383.8.2 High-Rise Buildings .............................................................................................................383.8.3 Vertical Irregularity ..............................................................................................................383.8.4 Plan Irregularity....................................................................................................................403.8.5 Pre-Code ...............................................................................................................................403.8.6 Post-Benchmark....................................................................................................................413.8.7 Soil Type C, D, or E .............................................................................................................41
3.9 Determining the Final Score..............................................................................................................413.10 Photographing the Building...............................................................................................................423.11 Comments Section.............................................................................................................................42
4. Using the RVS Procedure Results...............................................................................................................434.1 Interpretation of RVS Score ..............................................................................................................434.2 Selection of RVS “Cut-Off” Score ....................................................................................................434.3 Prior Uses of the RVS Procedure ......................................................................................................444.4 Other Possible Uses of the RVS Procedure.......................................................................................45
4.4.1 Using RVS Scores as a Basis for Hazardous Building Mitigation Programs.......................454.4.2 Using RVS Data in Community Building Inventory Development .....................................464.4.3 Using RVS Data to Plan Postearthquake Building-Safety-Evaluation Efforts.....................464.4.4 Resources Needed for the Various Uses of the RVS Procedure...........................................46
5. Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening........................................................................................495.1 Step 1: Budget and Cost Estimation.................................................................................................495.2 Step 2: Pre-Field Planning................................................................................................................505.3 Step 3: Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form .............................................................505.4 Step 4: Qualifications and Training for Screeners............................................................................515.5 Step 5: Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data...........................................................................515.6 Step 6: Review of Construction Documents.....................................................................................555.7 Step 7: Field Screening of Buildings................................................................................................555.8 Step 8: Transferring the RVS Field Data to the Electronic Building RVS Database .......................64
Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Quick Reference Guide ...................................................................77
Appendix C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings ...........................................................................83
Appendix D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age ........................................................................85
D.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................85D.2 What to Look for and How to Find It ................................................................................................85D.3 Identification of Building Age...........................................................................................................85D.4 Identification of Structural Type .......................................................................................................88D.5 Characteristics of Exposed Construction Materials...........................................................................95
Appendix E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types........................................99E.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................99E.2 Wood Frame (W1, W2) .....................................................................................................................99
Appendix F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them...........................................................................129F.1 The Nature of Earthquakes ..............................................................................................................129F.2 Seismicity of the United States........................................................................................................130F.3 Earthquake Effects...........................................................................................................................131F.4 How Buildings Resist Earthquakes .................................................................................................134
Figure 1-1 High, moderate, and low seismicity regions of the conterminous United States. Adifferent RVS Data Collection Form has been developed for each of these regions.................1
Figure 1-2 Data Collection Forms for the three designated seismicity regions (low, moderate,and high). ...................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2-2 Example RVS Data Collection Form (high seismicity).............................................................7
Figure 2-3 Sections 1 and 2 of Quick Reference Guide (for use with Data Collection Form)..................10
Figure 2-4 Building identification portion of RVS Data Collection Form................................................11
Figure 2-5 Example Sanborn map showing building information for a city block. ..................................12
Figure 2-6 Key to Sanborn map symbols. ...............................................................................................13
Figure 2-7 Sanborn map and corresponding aerial photograph of a city block.........................................14
Figure 2-8 Photographs of elevation views of buildings shown in Figure 2-7..........................................15
Figure 2-9 Examples of in-house screen displays of municipal databases................................................16
Figure 2-10 Location on Data Collection Form where soil type information is recorded...........................17
Figure 3-1 Example RVS Data Collection Form (high seismicity)...........................................................19
Figure 3-2 Portion of Data Collection Form for documenting building identification. ............................20
Figure 3-3 Sample Data Collection Form showing location for sketches of building plan andelevation views. .......................................................................................................................21
Figure 3-4 Location on Data Collection Form where soil type information is documented (circled).......21
Figure 3-5 Occupancy portion of Data Collection Form...........................................................................22
Figure 3-6 Portion of Data Collection Form for documenting nonstructural falling hazards. ..................23
Figure 3-7 Portion of Data Collection Form containing Basic Structural Hazard Scores. ........................25
Figure 3-8 Typical frame structure. Features include: large window spans, window openings onmany sides, and clearly visible column-beam grid pattern......................................................35
Figure 3-9 Typical bearing wall structure. Features include small window span, at least twomostly solid walls, and thick load-bearing walls. ....................................................................35
Figure 3-10 Frame and bearing wall structures ...........................................................................................36
Figure 3-11 Interior view showing fireproofed columns and beams, which indicate a steel building(S1, S2, or S4)..........................................................................................................................37
Figure 3-12 Interior view showing concrete columns and girders, which indicate a concrete momentframe (C1). ..............................................................................................................................37
Figure 3-13 Portion of Data Collection Form containing attributes that modify performance andassociated score modifiers....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-15 Example of setbacks and a soft first story ............................................................................... 39
Figure 3-16 Example of soft story conditions, where parking requirements result in largeweak openings. ........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 3-17 Plan views of various building configurations showing plan irregularities; arrowsindicate possible areas of damage. .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-18 Example of a building, with a plan irregularity, with two wings meeting at right angles....... 41
Figure 3-19 Example of a building, triangular in plan, subject to torsion. ................................................. 41
Figure 3-20 Location on Data Collection Form where the final score, comments, and an indicationif the building needs detailed evaluation are documented....................................................... 42
Figure 5-1 Screen capture of USGS web page showing SA values for 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec for groundmotions having 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years............................................... 50
Figure 5-2 High seismicity Data Collection Form selected for Anyplace, USA ...................................... 52
Figure 5-3 Quick Reference Guide for Anyplace USA showing entries for years in which seismiccodes were first adopted and enforced and benchmark years. ................................................ 53
Figure 5-4 Property information at example site in city’s geographic information system...................... 54
Figure 5-5 Exterior view of 3703 Roxbury Street .................................................................................... 56
Figure 5-6 Close-up view of 3703 Roxbury Street exterior showing perimeter braced steel framing...... 56
Figure 5-7 Building identification portion of Data Collection Form for Example 1,3703 Roxbury Street................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 5-8 Completed Data Collection Form for Example 1, 3703 Roxbury Street................................. 57
Figure 5-9 Exterior view of 3711 Roxbury............................................................................................... 58
Figure 5-10 Close-up view of 3711 Roxbury Street building exterior showing infill
Figure 5-15 Building identification portion of Data Collection Form for Example 4, 1450 AddisonAvenue.....................................................................................................................................62
Figure 5-16 Completed Data Collection Form for Example 4, 1450 Addison Avenue ..............................62
Figure A-1 Seismicity Regions of the Conterminous United States ..........................................................66
Figure A-2 Seismicity Regions in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington..........................67
Figure A-3 Seismicity Regions in Arizona, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming..............................................68
Figure A-4 Seismicity Regions in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas......................69
Figure A-5 Seismicity Regions in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota,South Dakota and Wisconsin...................................................................................................70
Figure A-6 Seismicity Regions in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio..................................71
Figure A-7 Seismicity Regions in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee...............72
Figure A-8 Seismicity Regions in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, RhodeIsland, and Vermont.................................................................................................................73
Figure A-9 Seismicity Regions in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, andWest Virginia...........................................................................................................................74
Figure A-10 Seismicity Regions in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina ........................75
Figure A-11 Seismicity Regions in Alaska and Hawaii ...............................................................................76
Figure D-1 Photos showing basic construction, in steel-frame buildings and reinforcedconcrete-frame buildings. ........................................................................................................91
Figure D-2 Building with exterior columns covered with a façade material..............................................94
Figure D-3 Detail of the column façade of Figure D-2. .............................................................................94
Figure D-4 Building with both shear walls (in the short direction) and frames (in the long direction) .....94
Figure D-5 Regular, full-height joints in a building’s wall indicate a concrete tilt-up. .............................95
Figure D-6 Reinforced masonry wall showing no course of header bricks (a row of visible brick ends). 95
Figure D-7 Reinforced masonry building with exterior wall of concrete masonry units, or concrete blocks.......................................................................................................................................95
Figure D-8 A 1970s renovated façade hides a URM bearing-wall structure..............................................95
Figure D-9 A concrete shear-wall structure with a 1960s renovated façade. .............................................96
Figure D-10 URM wall showing header courses (identified by arrows) and two washer platesindicating wall anchors. ...........................................................................................................96
Figure D-11 Drawing of two types of masonry pattern showing header bricks...........................................96
Figure D-12 Diagram of common reinforced masonry construction. Bricks are left out of the bottomcourse at intervals to create cleanout holes, then inserted before grouting ............................. 97
Figure D-14 Hollow clay tile wall with punctured tiles............................................................................... 97
Figure D-15 Sheet metal siding with masonry pattern................................................................................. 97
Figure D-16 Asphalt siding with brick pattern. ........................................................................................... 98
Figure D-17 Pre-1940 cast-in-place concrete with formwork pattern. ........................................................ 98
Figure E-1 Single family residence (an example of the W1 identifier, light wood-frame residentialand commercial buildings less than 5000 square feet). ........................................................... 99
Figure E-2 Larger wood-framed structure, typically with room-width spans (W2, light, wood-frame buildings greater than 5000 square feet). ................................................................................ 99
Figure E-3 Drawing of wood stud frame construction. ........................................................................... 100
Figure E-13 Braced steel frame, with chevron and diagonal braces. The braces and steel frames areusually covered by finish material after the steel is erected.................................................. 104
Figure E-14 Chevron bracing in steel building under construction........................................................... 104
Figure E-15 Rehabilitation of a concrete parking structure using exterior X-braced steel frames............ 105
Figure E-16 Use of a braced frame to rehabilitate an unreinforced masonry building.............................. 106
Figure E-17 Drawing of light metal construction...................................................................................... 106
Figure E-18 Connection of metal siding to light metal frame with rows of screws (encircled)................ 107
Figure E-19 Prefabricated metal building (S3, light metal building). ....................................................... 107
Figure E-20 Drawing of steel frame with interior concrete shear-walls.................................................... 108
Figure E-21 Concrete shear wall on building exterior. ..............................................................................108
Figure E-22 Close-up of exterior shear wall damage during a major earthquake......................................108
Figure E-23 Drawing of steel frame with URM infill................................................................................109
Figure E-24 Example of steel frame with URM infill walls (S5). .............................................................110
Figure E-25 Drawing of concrete moment-resisting frame building .........................................................111
Figure E-26 Extreme example of ductility in concrete, 1994 Northridge earthquake. ..............................111
Figure E-27 Example of ductile reinforced concrete column, 1994 Northridge earthquake; horizontalties would need to be closer for greater demands. .................................................................112
Figure E-28 Concrete moment-resisting frame building (C1) with exposed concrete, deep beams,wide columns (and with architectural window framing) .......................................................112
Figure E-29 Locations of failures at beam-to-column joints in nonductile frames, 1994 Northridgeearthquake..............................................................................................................................113
Figure E-30 Drawing of concrete shear-wall building...............................................................................114
Figure E-32 Shear-wall damage, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake................................................................115
Figure E-33 Concrete frame with URM infill............................................................................................115
Figure E-34 Blow-up (lower photo) of distant view of C3 building (upper photo) showing concreteframe with URM infill (left wall), and face brick (right wall)...............................................115
Figure E-35 Drawing of tilt-up construction typical of the western United States. Tilt-up
construction in the eastern United States may incorporate a steel frame...............................116
Figure E-37 Tilt-up industrial building, mid- to late 1980s.......................................................................117
Figure E-38 Tilt-up construction anchorage failure...................................................................................117
Figure E-39 Result of failure of the roof beam anchorage to the wall in tilt-up building..........................117
Figure E-40 Newly installed anchorage of roof beam to wall in tilt-up building. .....................................118
Figure E-41 Drawing of precast concrete frame building..........................................................................119
Figure E-42 Typical precast column cover on a steel or concrete moment frame. ....................................120
Figure E-43 Exposed precast double-T sections and overlapping beams are indicative of precast frames ........................................................................................................................120
Figure E-44 Example of precast double-T section during installation.......................................................120
Figure E-45 Precast structural cross; installation joints are at sections where bending is minimumduring high seismic demand.................................................................................................. 120
Figure E-46 Modern reinforced brick masonry. ........................................................................................ 121
Figure E-47 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing-wall building, 2-story........................................ 122
Figure E-48 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing-wall building, 4-story........................................ 123
Figure E-49 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing-wall building, 6-story........................................ 124
Figure E-50 East coast URM bearing-wall building. ................................................................................ 124
Figure E-51 West coast URM bearing-wall building................................................................................ 124
Figure E-52 Drawings of typical window head features in URM bearing-wall buildings........................ 125
Figure E-53 Parapet failure leaving an uneven roof line, due to inadequate anchorage, 1989 LomaPrieta earthquake. .................................................................................................................. 126
Figure E-54 Damaged URM building, 1992 Big Bear earthquake............................................................ 126
Figure E-55 Upper: Two existing anchors above three new wall anchors at floor line usingdecorative washer plates. Lower: Rehabilitation techniques include closely spacedanchors at floor and roof levels. ............................................................................................ 127
Figure F-1 The separate tectonic plates comprising the earth’s crust superimposed on a map of the world................................................................................................................................ 129
Figure F-2 Seismicity of the conterminous United States 1977-1997. This reproduction showsearthquake locations without regard to magnitude or depth. The San Andreas fault andother plate boundaries are indicated with white lines............................................................ 131
Figure F-3 Seismicity of Alaska 1977 – 1997. The white line close to most of the earthquakes isthe plate boundary, on the ocean floor, between the Pacific and North America plates. ...... 132
Figure F-4 Seismicity of Hawaii 1977 – 1997. ...................................................................................... 132.
Figure F-5 Mid-rise building collapse, 1985 Mexico City earthquake. .................................................. 133
Figure F-6 Near-field effects, 1992 Landers earthquake, showing house (white arrow) close tosurface faulting (black arrow); the insert shows a house interior.......................................... 134
Figure F-8 House that slid off foundation, 1994 Northridge earthquake. ............................................... 135
Figure F-9 Collapsed cripple stud walls dropped this house to the ground, 1992 Landers and BigBear earthquakes. .................................................................................................................. 135
Figure F-10 This house has settled to the ground due to collapse of its post and pier foundation............ 135
Figure F-11 Collapse of unreinforced masonry bearing wall, 1933 Long Beach earthquake................... 135
Figure F-12 Collapse of a tilt-up bearing wall, 1994 Northridge earthquake. .......................................... 135
Table 2-2 Benchmark Years for RVS Procedure Building Types (from FEMA 310). ..............................9
Table 2-3 Checklist of Issues to be Considered During Pre-Field Work Review of the DataCollection Form .......................................................................................................................10
Table 2-4 Checklist of Field Equipment Needed for Rapid Visual Screening.........................................18
Table 3-1 Build Type Descriptions, Basic Structural Hazard Scores, and Performance in PastEarthquakes..............................................................................................................................26
Table 4-1 Matrix of Personnel and Material Resources Needed for Various FEMA 154 RVS
recurrence interval considered, from a 475-year average return period (corresponding to groundmotions having a 10% probability of exceedancein 50 years) to a 2475-year average return period(corresponding to ground motions having a 2% probability of excedance in 50 years).
This second edition of the FEMA 154 Handbook has been shortened and focused to
facilitate implementation. Other improvementsinclude:
• guidance on planning and managing an RVSsurvey, including the training of screeners andthe acquisition of data from assessor files andother sources to obtain more reliableinformation on age, structural system, andoccupancy;
• more guidance for identifying the structural(lateral-load-resisting) system in the field;
• the use of interior inspection or pre-survey
reviews of building plans to identify (or verify) a building’s lateral-load-resistingsystem;
• updated Basic Structural Hazard Scores andScore Modifiers that are derived fromanalytical calculations and recently developedHAZUS fragility curves for the model building types considered by the RVSmethodology;
• the use of new seismic hazard information thatis compatible with seismic hazard criteriaspecified in other related FEMA documents(see Section 1.4 below); and
• a revised Data Collection Form that providesspace for documenting soil type, additionaloptions for documenting falling hazards, andan expanded list of occupancy types.
1.2 Screening Procedure Purpose,Overview, and Scope
The RVS procedure presented in this Handbook has been formulated to identify, inventory, andrank buildings that are potentially seismically
hazardous. Developed for a broad audience thatincludes building officials and inspectors,government agencies, design professionals, private-sector building owners (particularly thosethat own or operate clusters or groups of buildings), faculty members who use the RVS procedure as a training tool, and informedappropriately trained, members of the public, theRVS procedure can be implemented relativelyquickly and inexpensively to develop a list of
potentially hazardous buildings without the highcost of a detailed seismic analysis of individual buildings. If a building receives a high score (i.e.,above a specified cut-off score, as discussed later in this Handbook ), the building is considered tohave adequate seismic resistance. If a buildingreceives a low score on the basis of this RVS procedure, it should be evaluated by a professional
engineer having experience or training in seismicdesign. On the basis of this detailed inspection,engineering analyses, and other detailed procedures, a final determination of the seismicadequacy and need for rehabilitation can be made.
During the planning stage, which is discussedin Chapter 2, the organization that is conductingthe RVS procedure (hereinafter, the “RVSauthority”) will need to specify how the resultsfrom the survey will be used. If the RVS authoritydetermines that a low score automatically requiresthat further study be performed by a professional
engineer, then some acceptable level of qualification held by the inspectors performing thescreening will be necessary. RVS projects have awide range of goals and they have constraints on budget, completion date and accuracy, which must be considered by the RVS authority as it selectsqualification requirements of the screening personnel. Under most circumstances, a well- planned and thorough RVS project will requireengineers to perform the inspections. In any case,the program should be overseen by a design professional knowledgeable in seismic design for quality assurance purposes.
The RVS procedure in this Handbook isdesigned to be implemented without performingstructural analysis calculations. The RVS procedure utilizes a scoring system that requiresthe user to (1) identify the primary structurallateral-load-resisting system; and (2) identify building attributes that modify the seismic performance expected of this lateral-load-resistingsystem. The inspection, data collection, anddecision-making process typically will occur at the building site, taking an average of 15 to 30minutes per building (30 minutes to one hour if access to the interior is available). Results are
recorded on one of three Data Collection Forms(Figure 1-2), depending on the seismicity of theregion being surveyed. The Data Collection Form,described in greater detail in Chapter 3, includesspace for documenting building identificationinformation, including its use and size, a photograph of the building, sketches, anddocumentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance, including the development of a
numeric seismic hazard score.The scores are based on averageexpected ground shaking levels for the seismicity region as well as theseismic design and construction practices for that region1.Buildings may be reviewed fromthe sidewalk without the benefit of
building entry, structuraldrawings, or structuralcalculations. Reliability andconfidence in building attributedetermination are increased,however, if the structural framingsystem can be verified duringinterior inspection, or on the basisof a review of constructiondocuments.
The RVS procedure isintended to be applicable
nationwide, for all conventional building types. Bridges, largetowers, and other non-buildingstructure types, however, are notcovered by the procedure. Due to budget or other constraints, someRVS authorities may wish torestrict their RVS to identifying building types that they consider the most hazardous, such asunreinforced masonry or nonductile concrete buildings.However, it is recommended, at
least initially, that all conventional building types be considered, andthat elimination of certain buildingtypes from the screening be welldocumented and supported withoffice calculations and fieldsurvey data that justify their elimination. It is possible that, in some cases,even buildings designed to modern codes, such asthose with configurations that induce extremetorsional response and those with abrupt changesin stiffness, may be potentially hazardous.
1 Seismic design and construction practices vary byseismicity region, with little or no seismic designrequirements in low seismicity regions, moderateseismic design requirements in moderate seismicityregions, and extensive seismic design requirements inhigh seismicity regions. The requirements also varywith time, and are routinely updated to reflect newknowledge about building seismic performance.
1.3 Companion FEMA 155 Report
A companion volume to this report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (second edition) (FEMA 155) documents the technical
basis for the RVS procedure described in this Handbook , including the method for calculatingthe Basic Structural Scores and Score Modifiers.The FEMA 155 report (ATC, 2002) alsosummarizes other information considered duringdevelopment of this Handbook , including theefforts to solicit user feedback and a FEMA 154Users Workshop held in September 2000. TheFEMA 155 document is available from FEMA by
Figure 1-2 Data Collection Forms for the three designatedseismicity regions (low, moderate, and high).
dialing 1-800-480-2520 and should be consultedfor any needed or desired supportingdocumentation.
1.4 Relationship of FEMA 154 toOther Documents in the FEMA Existing Building Series
The FEMA 154 Handbook has been developed asan integral and fundamental part of the FEMAreport series on seismic safety of existing buildings. It is intended for use by design professionals and others to mitigate the damagingeffects of earthquakes on existing buildings. Theseries includes:
• FEMA 154 (this handbook), which provides a procedure that can be rapidly implemented toidentify buildings that are potentiallyseismically hazardous.
• FEMA 310, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation
of Buildings—A Prestandard (ASCE, 1998),which provides a procedure to inspect in detaila given building to evaluate its seismicresisting capacity (an updated version of theFEMA 178 NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings [BSSC,1992]). The FEMA 310 Handbook is ideallysuited for use on those buildings identified bythe FEMA 154 RVS procedure as potentiallyhazardous.
FEMA 310 is expected to be superseded in2002 by ASCE 31, a standard of the American
Society of Civil Engineers approved by theAmerican National Standards Institute(ANSI). References in this Handbook toFEMA 310 should then refer to ASCE 31.
• FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000), which provides recommended procedures for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings with inadequate seismic capacity, asdetermined, for example, by a FEMA 310 (or FEMA 178) evaluation. The FEMA 356Prestandard is based on the guidance provided
in the FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for theSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC,1997a), and companion FEMA 274Commentary on the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC,1997b).
1.5 Uses of RVS Survey Results
While the principal purpose of the RVS procedureis to identify potentially seismically hazardous buildings needing further evaluation, results fromRVS surveys can also be used for other purposes.These include: (1) ranking a community’s (or agency’s) seismic rehabilitation needs; (2)
designing seismic hazard mitigation programs for a community (or agency); (3) developinginventories of buildings for use in regionalearthquake damage and loss impact assessments;(4) planning postearthquake building safetyevaluation efforts; and (5) developing building-specific seismic vulnerability information for purposes such as insurance rating, decisionmaking during building ownership transfers, and possible triggering of remodeling requirementsduring the permitting process. Additionaldiscussion on the use of RVS survey results is provided in Chapter 4.
1.6 How to Use this Handbook
The Handbook has been designed to facilitate the planning and execution of rapid visual screening.It is assumed that the RVS authority has alreadydecided to conduct the survey, and that detailedguidance is needed for all aspects of the surveying process. Therefore, the main body of the Handbook focuses on the three principal activitiesin the RVS: planning, execution, and datainterpretation. Chapter 2 contains detailedinformation on planning and managing an RVS.
Chapter 3 describes in detail how the DataCollection Form should be completed, andChapter 4 provides guidance on interpreting andusing the results from the RVS. Finally, Chapter 5 provides several example applications of the RVS procedure on real buildings.
Relevant seismic hazard maps, full-sized DataCollection Forms, including a Quick ReferenceGuide for RVS implementation, guidance for reviewing design and construction drawings, andadditional guidance for identifying a building’sseismic lateral-load-resisting system from thestreet are provided in Appendices A, B, C, and D,
respectively. Appendix E provides additionalinformation on the building types considered inthe RVS procedure, and Appendix F provides anoverview of earthquake fundamentals, theseismicity of the United States, and earthquakeeffects.
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 5
Chapter 2
Planning and ManagingRapid Visual Screening
Once the decision to conduct rapid visualscreening (RVS) for a community or group of buildings has been made by the RVS authority, thescreening effort can be expedited by pre-planningand careful overall management of the process. This chapter describes the overallscreening implementation sequence and provides detailed information on important pre-planning and management aspects.Instructions on how to complete the Data
Collection Form are provided in Chapter 3.
2.1 Screening ImplementationSequence
There are several steps involved in planning and performing an RVS of potentially seismically hazardous buildings.As a first step, if it is to be a public or community project, the local governing body and local building officials shouldformally approve of the general procedure.Second, the public or the members of the
community should be informed about the purpose of the screening process and how itwill be carried out. There are also other decisions to be made, such as use of thescreening results, responsibilities of the building owners and the community, andactions to be taken. Some of thesedecisions are specific to each communityand therefore are not discussed in this Handbook .
The general sequence of implementingthe RVS procedure is depicted in Figure2-1. The implementation sequence
includes:
• Budget development and costestimation, recognizing the expectedextent of the screening and further useof the gathered data;
• Pre-field planning, including selectionof the area to be surveyed,identification of building types to be
screened, selection and development of arecord-keeping system, and compilation anddevelopment of maps that document localseismic hazard information;
6 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
• Selection and review of the Data CollectionForm;
• Selection and training of screening personnel;
• Acquisition and review of pre-field data;including review of existing building files anddatabases to document information identifying buildings to be screened (e.g., address, lot
number, number of stories, design date) andidentifying soil types for the survey area;
• Review of existing building plans, if available;
• Field screening of individual buildings (seeChapter 3 for details), which consists of:
1. Verifying and updating buildingidentification information,
2. Walking around the building andsketching a plan and elevation view on theData Collection Form,
3. Determining occupancy (that is, the building use and number of occupants),
4. Determining soil type, if not identifiedduring the pre-planning process,
6. Identifying the seismic-lateral-load-resisting system (entering the building, if possible, to facilitate this process) andcircling the Basic Structural Hazard Scoreon the Data Collection Form,
7. Identifying and circling the appropriateseismic performance attribute ScoreModifiers (e.g., number of stories, designdate, and soil type) on the Data CollectionForm,
8. Determining the Final Score, S (byadjusting the Basic Structural HazardScore with the Score Modifiers identifiedin Step 7), and deciding if a detailedevaluation is required, and
9. Photographing the building; and
• Checking the quality and filing the screeningdata in the record-keeping system, or database.
2.2 Budget Development and CostEstimation
Many of the decisions that are made about thelevel of detail documented during the rapid visualscreening procedure will depend upon budgetconstraints. Although the RVS procedure is
designed so field screening of each buildingshould take no more than 15 to 30 minutes (30minutes to one hour if access to the interior isobtained), time and funds should also be allocatedfor pre-field data collection. Pre-field datacollection can be time consuming (10 to 30minutes per building depending on the type of supplemental data available). However, it can be
extremely useful in reducing the total field timeand can increase the reliability of data collected inthe field. A good example of this is the age, or design date, of a building. This might be readilyavailable from building department files but ismuch more difficult to estimate from the street.Another issue to consider is travel time, if thedistance between buildings to be screened is large.Because pre-field data collection and travel timecould be a significant factor in budget allocations,it should be considered in the planning phase.
Other factors that should be considered in cost
estimation are training of personnel and thedevelopment and administration of a record-keeping system for the screening process. Thetype of record keeping system selected will be afunction of existing procedures and availablefunds as well as the ultimate goal of the screening.For example, if the screening is to be used solelyfor potential seismic damage estimation purposes,administrative costs will be different from those of a screening in which owners of low-scoring buildings must subsequently be notified, andcompliance with ordinances is required.
2.3 Pre-Field PlanningThe RVS authority may decide due to budget, timeor other types of constraints, that priorities should be set and certain areas within the region should be surveyed immediately, whereas other areas can be surveyed at a later time because they areassumed to be less hazardous. An area may beselected because it is older and may have a higher density of potentially seismically hazardous buildings relative to other areas. For example anolder part of the RVS authority region that consistsmainly of commercial unreinforced masonry
buildings may be of higher priority than a newer area with mostly warehouse facilities, or aresidential section of a city consisting of wood-frame single-family dwellings.
Compiling and developing maps for thesurveyed region is important in the initial planning phase as well as in scheduling of screeners. Mapsof soil profiles, although limited, will be directlyuseful in the screening, and maps of landslide potential, liquefaction potential, and active faults
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 7
provide useful background information about therelative hazard in different areas. Maps of lotswill be useful in scheduling screeners and, as dataare collected, in identifying areas with largenumbers of potentially hazardous buildings.
Another important phase of pre-field planningis interaction with the local design profession and building officials. Discussions should include
verification of when certain aspects of seismicdesign and detailing were adopted and enforced.This will be used in adjusting the scoring systemfor local practices and specifying benchmark years.
The record-keeping system will vary amongRVS authorities, depending on needs, goals, budgets and other constraints, and may in factconsist of several systems. Part of this planning phase may include deciding how buildings are to be identified. Some suggestions are street address,assessor’s parcel number, census tract, and lot
number or owner. Consideration should be givento developing a computerized database containinglocation and other building information, whichcould easily be used to generate peel-off labelsfor the Data Collection Form, or to generateforms that incorporate unique information for each building.
The advantage of using a computerizedrecord generation and collection system is thatgraphical data, such as sketches and photographs, are increasingly more easilyconverted to digital form and stored on thecomputer, especially if they are collected in
digital format in the field. This can befacilitated through the use of personal digitalassistants (PDAs), which would require thedevelopment of a FEMA 154 application, andthe use of digital cameras.
If a computerized database is not used,microfilm is a good storage medium for original hard copy, because photographs, building plans, screening forms and subsequentfollow-up documentation can be kept together and easily copied. Another method that has been used is to generate a separate hard-copyfile for each building as it is screened. In fact,
the screening form can be reproduced on alarge envelope and all supporting material and photographs stored inside. This solves any problems associated with attaching multiplesketches and photographs, but the files growrapidly and may become unmanageable.
2.4 Selection and Review of theData Collection Form
There are three Data Collection Forms, one for each of the following three regions of seismicity:low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). Full-sizedversions of each form are provided in Appendix B,along with a Quick Reference Guide that contains
definitions and explanations for terms used on theData Collection Form. Each Data Collection Form(see example, Figure 2-2) provides space torecord the building identification information,draw a sketch of the building (plan andelevation views), attach a photograph of the building, indicate the occupancy, indicate the soiltype, document the existence of falling hazards,develop a Final Structural Score, S , for the building, indicate if a detailed evaluation isrequired, and provide additional comments. Thestructural scoring system consists of a matrix of Basic Structural Hazard Scores (one for each
building type and its associated seismic lateral-force-resisting system) and Score Modifiers to
Figure 2-2 Example RVS Data Collection Form (highseismicity).
8 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
account for observed attributes that modifyseismic performance. The Basic Structural HazardScores and Score Modifiers are based on (1)design and construction practices in the region, (2)attributes known to decrease or increase seismicresistance capacity, and (3) maximum consideredground motions for the seismicity region under consideration. The Basic Structural Hazard Score,
Score Modifiers, and Final Structural Score, S , allrelate to the probability of building collapse,should the maximum ground motions considered by the RVS procedure occur at the site. Final S scores typically range from 0 to 7, with higher S scores corresponding to better seismic performance.
The maximum ground motions considered inthe scoring system of the RVS procedure areconsistent with those specified for detailed building seismic evaluation in the FEMA 310Report, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of
Buildings—A Prestandard . Such ground motionsgenerally have a 2% chance of being exceeded in50 years, and are multiplied by a 2/3 factor in theFEMA 310 evaluation procedures and in thedesign requirements for new buildings in FEMA302, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 1997). (Ground motions havinga 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years arecommonly referred to as the maximum consideredearthquake (MCE) ground motions.)
2.4.1 Determination of Seismicity Region
To select the appropriate Data Collection Form,it is first necessary to determine the seismicityregion in which the area to be screened is located.The seismicity region (H, M, or L) for the screeningarea can be determined by one of two methods:
1. Find the location of the surveyed region on theseismicity map of Figure 1-1, or one of theenlarged seismicity maps provided in AppendixA, and identify the corresponding seismicityregion, or;
2. Access the U.S. Geological Survey web page
(http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/), select“Hazard by Zip Code” or “Hazard by Lat/Long”under the “Seismic Hazard” heading, enter theappropriate values of zip code or latitude andlongitude, select the spectral acceleration value(SA) for a period of 0.2 seconds and the SAvalue for a period of 1.0 second, multiply the SAvalues by 2/3, and use the criteria of Table 2-1 toselect the appropriate seismicity region,assuming that the highest seismicity level
defined by the parameters in Table 2-1 shallgovern.
Use more recent additions of these maps whenthey become available.
The web site approach of Method 2, which usesseismicity region definitions used in other recentlydeveloped FEMA documents, is preferred as it
enables the user to determine seismicity based on amore precisely specified location. In contrast, eachcounty shown in Figure 1-1 is assigned its seismicityon the basis of the highest seismicity in that county,even though it may only apply to a small portion of the county.
Table 2-1 Regions of Seismicity withCorresponding Spectral AccelerationResponse (from FEMA 310)
Region of
Seismicity
Spectral AccelerationResponse, SA (short-
period, or 0.2 sec)
Spectral AccelerationResponse, SA (long-
period or 1.0 sec)
Low less than 0.167 g (inhorizontal direction)
less than 0.067 g (inhorizontal direction)
Moderate greater than or equalto 0.167 g but lessthan 0.500 g (inhorizontal direction)
greater than or equalto 0.067 g but lessthan 0.200 g (inhorizontal direction)
High greater than or equalto 0.500 g (inhorizontal direction)
greater than or equalto 0.200 g (inhorizontal direction)
Notes: g = acceleration of gravity
2.4.2 Determination of Key Seismic Code
Adoption Dates and Other
Considerations
The Data Collection Form is meant to be a
model that may be adopted and used as it is
presented in this Handbook . The form may also bemodified according to the needs of the RVSauthority. Therefore, another aspect of thescreening planning process is to review the DataCollection Form to determine if all required data
are represented or if modifications should be madeto reflect the needs and special circumstances of the authority. For example, an RVS authority maychoose to define additional occupancy classes suchas “parking structure” or “multi-familyresidential.”
One of the key issues that must be addressedin the planning process is the determination of (1)the year in which seismic codes were initially
Year in which seismic anchorage requirements were adopted: _______
chief building official, plan checkers, and other design professionals experienced in seismic designto identify the years in which the affected jurisdiction initially adopted and enforced seismiccodes (if ever) for the building lateral-force-
resisting structural systems considered by the RVS procedure. Since municipal codes are generallyadopted by the city council, another source for thisinformation, in many municipalities, is the cityclerk’s office. In addition to determining the year in which seismic codes were initially adopted andenforced, the RVS authority should also determine(1) the benchmark years in which substantiallyimproved seismic codes were adopted andenforced for the various lateral-load-resistingsystems and (2) the year in which anchoragerequirements for cladding were adopted andenforced. These dates should be inserted on theQuick Reference Guide (Appendix B) that has been created to facilitate the use of the DataCollection Form (see Figure 2-3).
During the Data Collection Form review process, it is critically important that the BasicStructural Hazard Scores and Score Modifiers,which are described in detail in Chapter 3, not bechanged without input from professional engineersfamiliar with earthquake-resistant design and
construction practices of the local community. Achecklist of issues to be considered whenreviewing the Data Collection Form is provided inTable 2-3.
Table 2-3 Checklist of Issues to be ConsideredDuring Pre-Field Work Review of theData Collection Form
Evaluate completeness of occupancy categoriesand appropriateness of occupancy loads
Determine year in which seismic codes wereinitially adopted in the jurisdiction
Determine “benchmark” years in which the jurisdiction adopted and enforced significantlyimproved seismic codes for the various building types considered by the RVS procedure
Determine year in which the jurisdiction
adopted and enforced anchorage requirementsfor heavy cladding
2.4.3 Determination of Cut-Off Score
Use of the RVS on a community-wide basisenables the RVS authority to divide screened buildings into two categories: those that areexpected to have acceptable seismic performance,and those that may be seismically hazardous and
Figure 2-3 Sections 1 and 2 of Quick Reference Guide (for use with Data Collection Form).
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 11
should be studied further. This requires that theRVS authority determine, preferably as part of the pre-planning process, an appropriate “cut-off”score.
An S score of 2 is suggested as a “cut-off”, based on present seismic design criteria. Usingthis cut-off level, buildings having an S score of 2or less should be investigated by a design
professional experienced in seismic design (seeSection 3.9, 4.1 and 4.2 for additional informationon this issue).
2.5 Qualifications and Training forScreeners
It is anticipated that a training program will berequired to ensure a consistent, high quality of thedata and uniformity of decisions among screeners.Training should include discussions of lateral-force-resisting systems and how they behave whensubjected to seismic loads, hw to use the Data
Collection Form, what to look for in the field, andhow to account for uncertainty. In conjunctionwith a professional engineer experienced inseismic design, screeners should simultaneouslyconsider and score buildings of several differenttypes and compare results. This will serve as a“calibration” for the screeners.
This process can easily be accomplished in aclassroom setting with photographs of actual buildings to use as examples. Prospectivescreeners review the photographs and perform theRVS procedure as though they were on thesidewalk. Upon completion, the class discussesthe results and students can compare how they didin relation to the rest of the class.
2.6 Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data
Information on the structural system, age or occupancy (that is, use) may be available fromsupplemental sources. These data, from assessor and building department files, insurance (Sanborn)maps, and previous studies, should be reviewedand collated for a given area before commencingthe field survey for that area. It is recommended
that this supplemental information either bewritten directly on the Data Collection Forms as itis retrieved or be entered into a computerizeddatabase. The advantage of a database is thatselected information can be printed in a reportformat that can be taken into the field, or printedonto peel-off labels that can be affixed to the DataCollection Form (see Figure 2-4). In addition,screening data can be added to the databases and
used to generate maps and reports. Some sourcesof supplemental information are described inSections 2.6.1 through 2.6.5.
2.6.1 Assessor’s Files
Although assessor’s files may contain informationabout the age of the building, the floor area andthe number of stories, most information relates toownership and assessed value of the land andimprovements, and thus is of relatively little valuefor RVS purposes. The construction typeindicated is often incorrect and in most casesshould not be used. In addition, the age of a
building retrieved from assessor’s files may not,and most likely is not, the year that the structurewas built. Usually assessor’s files contain the year that the building was first eligible for taxation.Because the criteria for this may vary, the datemay be several years after the building wasdesigned or constructed. If no other source of information is available this will give a goodestimate of the period during which the building
Figure 2-4 Building identification portion of RVSData Collection Form.
12 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
was constructed. However, this date should not beused to establish conclusively the code under which the a building was designed. Assessor’soffices may have parcel or lot maps, which may beuseful for locating sites or may be used as atemplate for sketching building adjacencies on a particular city block.
2.6.2 Building Department FilesThe extent and completeness of information in building department files will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in somelocations all old files have been removed or destroyed, so there is no information on older buildings. In general, files (or microfilm) maycontain permits, plans and structural calculationsrequired by the city.Sometimes there isoccupancy and useinformation, but little
information aboutstructural type will befound except from thereview of plans or calculations.
2.6.3 Sanborn Maps
These maps, published primarily for theinsurance industry sincethe late 1800s, exist for about 22,000communities in theUnited States. TheSanborn Map Companystopped routinelyupdating these maps inthe early 1960s, and manycommunities have notkept these maps up-to-date. Thus they may not be useful for newer construction. However,the maps may containuseful data for older
construction. They can befound at the library or insome cases in buildingdepartment offices. Figure2-5 provides an exampleof an up-to-date Sanbornmap Figure 2-6 shows akey to identifiers onSanborn maps.
Information found on a Sanborn map includes:
• height of building,
• number of stories,
• year built,
• thickness of walls,
• building size (square feet),• type of roof (tile, shingle, composite),
• building use (dwelling, store, apartment),
• presence of garage under structure, and
• structural type (wood frame, fireproof construction, adobe, stone, concrete).
Figure 2-5 Example Sanborn map showing building information for a city block.
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 13
Parcel maps are also available and contain lotdimensions. If building size information cannot beobtained from another source such as theassessor’s file, the parcel maps are particularlyhelpful for determining building dimensions inurban areas where buildings cover the entire lot.
However, even if the building does not cover theentire lot, it will be easier to estimate buildingdimensions if the lot dimensions are known.
Figures 2-7 and 2-8 show a Sanborn map and photographs of a city block. Building descriptionsobtained from the Sanborn maps are also included.
Figure 2-6 Key to Sanborn map symbols. Also, see the Internet, www.sanbornmap.com.
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 15
Although the information onSanborn maps may be useful,it is the responsibility of thescreener to verify it in thefield.
2.6.4 Municipal
Databases
With the widespread use of the internet, many jurisdictions are creating “on-line” electronic databases for use by the general public.These databases providegeneral information on thevarious building sites withinthe jurisdiction. Thesedatabases are not detailedenough at this point in time to provide specific information
about the buildings; they do,however, provide some gooddemographic information thatcould be of use. As themunicipalities develop morecomprehensive information,these databases will becomemore useful to the RVSscreening. Figure 2-9 showsexamples of the databasesfrom two municipalities in theUnited States.
2.6.5 Previous Studies
In a few cases, previous building inventories or studiesof hazardous buildings or hazardous non-structural elements (e.g., parapets) may have been performed. These studies may be limited to a particular structural or occupancy class, but theymay contain useful maps or other relevantstructural information and should be reviewed.Other important studies might address related
seismic hazard issues such as liquefaction or landslide potential. Local historical societies mayhave published books or reports about older buildings in the community. Fire departments areoften aware of the overall condition andcomposition of building interiors.
2.6.6 Soils Information
Soil type has a major influence on amplitude andduration of shaking, and thus structural damage.Generally speaking, the deeper the soils at a site, themore damaging the earthquake motion will be. The
six soil types considered in the RVS procedure arethe same as those specified in the FEMA 302 report, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Design of New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 1997): hard rock (type A); average rock (type B); dense soil (type C), stiff soil (type D); softsoil (type E), and poor soil (type F). Additionalinformation on these soil types and how to identify
Figure 2-8 Photographs of elevation views of buildings shown in Figure 2-7.
FEMA 154 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening 17
them are provided in the side bar. Buildings onsoil type F cannot be screened effectively by theRVS procedure, other than to recommend that buildings on this soil type be further evaluated bya geotechnical engineer and design professionalexperienced in seismic design.
Since soil conditions cannot be readily
identified by visual methods in the field, geologicand geotechnical maps and other informationshould be collected during the planning stage and put into a readily usable map format for use duringRVS. During the screening, or the planning stage,this soil type should also be documented on theData Collection Form by circling the correct soiltype, as designated by the letters A through F, (seeFigure 2-10). If sufficient guidance or data are notavailable during the planning stage to classify thesoil type as A through E, a soil type E should beassumed. However, for one-story or two-story buildings with a roof height equal to or less than25 feet, a class D soil type may be assumed whensite conditions are not known. (See the note in preceding paragraph regarding soil type F.)
2.7 Review of ConstructionDocuments
Whenever possible, design and constructiondocuments should be reviewed prior to the
conduct of field work to help the screener identifythe type of lateral-force- resisting system for each building. The review of construction documentsto identify the building type substantially improvesthe confidence in this determination. As describedin Section 3.7, the RVS procedure requires thateach building be identified as one of 15 model building types2. Guidance for reviewing designand construction drawings is provided inAppendix C.
2The 15 model building types used in FEMA 154 are an
abbreviated list of the 22 types now considered standard
by FEMA; excluded from the FEMA 154 list are sub-
classifications of certain framing types that specify that
the roof and floor diaphragms are either rigid or flexible.
Soil Type Definitions and Related Parameters
The six soil types, with measurable parameters that
define each type, are:
Type A (hard rock): measured shear wave velocity, v s
> 5000 ft/sec.
Type B (rock): v s between 2500 and 5000 ft/sec.
Type C (soft rock and very dense soil): v s between
1200 and 2500 ft/sec, or standard blow count N > 50, or undrained shear strength su > 2000 psf.
Type D (stiff soil): v s between 600 and 1200 ft/sec, or
standard blow count N between 15 and 50, or undrained
shear strength, su between 1000 and 2000 psf.
Type E (soft soil): More than 100 feet of soft soil with
plasticity index PI > 20, water content w > 40%, and
su < 500 psf; or a soil with v s ≤ 600 ft/sec.
Type F (poor soil): Soils requiring site-specific
evaluations:
• Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse
under seismic loading, such as liquefiable soils,
quick and highly-sensitive clays, collapsible
weakly-cemented soils.• Peats or highly organic clays (H > 10 feet of peat
or highly organic clay, where H = thickness of
soil.).
• Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 feet withPI > 75).
• More than 120 ft of soft or medium stiff clays.
The parameters v s, N , and su are, respectively, the
average values (often shown with a bar above) of shear
wave velocity, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow
count and undrained shear strength of the upper 100
feet of soils at the site.
Figure 2-10 Location on Data Collection Formwhere soil type information isrecorded.
18 2: Planning and Managing Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
2.8 Field Screening of Buildings
RVS screening of buildings in the field should becarried out by teams consisting of two individuals.Teams of two are recommended to provide anopportunity to discuss issues requiring judgmentand to facilitate the data collection process. If atall possible, one of the team members should be a
design professional who can identify lateral-force-resisting systems.
Relatively few tools or equipment are needed.Table 2-4 contains a checklist of items that may beneeded in performing an RVS as described in this Handbook.
2.9 Checking the Quality and Filingthe Field Data in the Record-Keeping System
The last step in the implementation of rapid visualscreening is checking the quality and filing the
RVS data in the record-keeping system establishedfor this purpose. If the data are to be stored in filefolders or envelopes containing data for each building that was screened, or on microfilm, the process is straightforward, and requires carefulorganization. If the data are to be stored in digitalform, it is important that the data input andverification process include either double entry of
all data, or systematic in-depth review of print outs(item by item review) of all entered data.
It is also recommended that the quality review be performed under the oversight of a design professional with significant experience in seismicdesign.
Table 2-4 Checklist of Field EquipmentNeeded for Rapid Visual Screening
Binoculars, if high-rise buildings are to beevaluated
Camera, preferably instant or digital
Clipboard for holding Data Collection Forms
Copy of the FEMA 154 Handbook
Laminated version of the Quick Reference Guidedefining terms used on the Data Collection Form(see Appendix B)
Pen or pencil
Straight edge (optional for drawing sketches)
Tape or stapler, for affixing photo if instant camera is used
FEMA 154 3: Completing the Data Collection Form 21
3.2.4 Total Floor Area
The total floor area, in some cases available from building department or assessor files (see Section2.6), will most likely be estimated by multiplyingthe estimated area of one story by the total number of stories in the building. The length and width of the building can be paced off or estimated (duringthe planning stage) from Sanborn or other parcelmaps. Total floor area is useful for estimatingoccupancy load (see Section 3.5.2) and may beuseful at a later time for estimating the value of the building. Indicate with an asterisk when totalfloor area is estimated.
3.3 Sketching the Plan andElevation Views
As a minimum, a sketch of the plan of the buildingshould be drawn on the Data Collection Form (seeFigure 3-3). An elevation may also be useful inindicating significant features. The sketches areespecially important, as they reveal many of the building’s attributes to the screener as the sketch is
made. In other words, it forces the screener tosystematically view all aspects of the building.The plan sketch should include the location of the building on the site and distance to adjacent buildings. One suggestion is to make the plansketch from a Sanborn map as part of pre-fieldwork (see Chapter 2), and then verify it in thefield. This is especially valuable when access
between buildings is not available. If all sides of the building are different, an elevation should besketched for each side. Otherwise indicate that thesketch is typical of all sides. The sketch shouldnote and emphasize special features such asexisting significant cracks or configuration problems.
Dimensions should be included. As indicatedin the previous section, the length and width of the building can be paced off or estimated (during the planning stage) from Sanborn or other parcelmaps.
3.4 Determining Soil Type
As indicated in Section 2.6.6, soil type should beidentified and documented on the Data CollectionForm (see Figure 3-4) during the pre-field soilsdata acquisition and review phase. If soil type hasnot been determined as part of that process, itneeds to be identified by the screener during theFigure 3-3 Sample Data Collection Form
showing location for sketches of building plan and elevation views.
SKETCHES
Figure 3-4 Location on Data Collection Formwhere soil type information isdocumented (circled).
22 3: Completing the Data Collection Form FEMA 154
building site visit. If there is no basis for classifying the soil type, a soil type E should beassumed. However, for one-story or two-story buildings with a roof height equal to or less than25 feet, a class D soil type may be assumed whensite conditions are not known.
3.5 Determining and Documenting
Occupancy
Two sets of information are needed relative tooccupancy: (1) building use, and (2) estimatednumber of persons occupying the building.
3.5.1 Occupancy
Occupancy-related information is indicated bycircling the appropriate information in the left-center portion of the form (see Figure 3-5). Theoccupancy of a building refers to its use, whereasthe occupancy load is the number of people in the
building (see Section 3.5.2). Although usually not bearing directly on the structural hazard or probability of sustaining major damage, theoccupancy of a building is of interest and usewhen determining priorities for mitigation.
Nine general occupancy classes that are easyto recognize have been defined. They are listed onthe form as Assembly, Commercial, EmergencyServices (Emer. Services), Government (Govt),Historic, Industrial, Office, Residential, School buildings. These are the same classes used in thefirst edition of FEMA 154. They have beenretained in this edition for consistency, they are
easily identifiable from the street, they generallyrepresent the broad spectrum of building uses inthe United States, and they are similar to theoccupancy categories in the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997).
The occupancy class that best describes the building being evaluated should be circled on theform. If there are several types of uses in the building, such as commercial and residential, bothshould be circled. The actual use of the buildingmay be written in the upper right hand portion of the form. For example, one might indicate thatthe building is a post office or a library on the line
titled “use” in the upper right of the form (seeFigure 3-2). In both of these cases, one would alsocircle “Govt”. If none of the defined classes seemto fit the building, indicate the use in the upper right portion of the form (the buildingidentification area) or include an explanation inthe comments section. The nine occupancyclasses are described below (with generalindications of occupancy load):
• Assembly. Places of public assembly are thosewhere 300 or more people might be gatheredin one room at the same time. Examples aretheaters, auditoriums, community centers, performance halls, and churches. (Occupancyload varies greatly and can be as much as 1 person per 10 sq. ft. of floor area, depending primarily on the condition of the seating— fixed versus moveable).
• Commercial. The commercial occupancyclass refers to retail and wholesale businesses,financial institutions, restaurants, parkingstructures and light warehouses. (Occupancyload varies; use 1 person per 50 to 200 sq. ft.).
• Emergency Services. The emergency servicesclass is defined as any facility that wouldlikely be needed in a major catastrophe. Theseinclude police and fire stations, hospitals, andcommunications centers. (Occupancy load istypically 1 person per 100 sq. ft.).
•Government. This class includes local, stateand federal non-emergency related buildings(Occupancy load varies; use 1 person per 100to 200 sq. ft.).
• Historic. This class will vary from communityto community. It is included because historic buildings may be subjected to specificordinances and codes.
FEMA 154 3: Completing the Data Collection Form 23
• Industrial. Included in the industrialoccupancy class are factories, assembly plants,large warehouses and heavy manufacturingfacilities. (Typically, use 1 person per 200 sq.ft. except warehouses, which are perhaps 1 person per 500 sq. ft.).
• Office. Typical office buildings house clerical
and management occupancies (use 1 person per 100 to 200 sq. ft.).
• Residential. This occupancy class refers toresidential buildings such as houses,townhouses, dormitories, motels, hotels,apartments and condominiums, and residencesfor the aged or disabled. (The number of persons for residential occupancies variesfrom about 1 person per 300 sq. ft. of floor area in dwellings, to perhaps 1 person per 200sq. ft. in hotels and apartments, to 1 per 100sq. ft. in dormitories).
• School. This occupancy class includes all public and private educational facilities fromnursery school to university level.(Occupancy load varies; use 1 person per 50 to100 sq. ft.).
When occupancy is used by a community as a basis for setting priorities for hazard mitigation purposes, the upgrade of emergency services buildings is often of highest priority. Somecommunities may have special design criteriagoverning buildings for emergency services. Thisinformation may be used to add a special Score
Modifier to increase the score for speciallydesigned emergency buildings.
3.5.2 Occupancy Load
Like the occupancy class or use of the building,the occupancy load may be used by an RVSauthority in setting priorities for hazard mitigation plans. The community may wish to upgrade buildings with more occupants first. As can beseen from the form (Figure 3-5), the occupancyload is defined in ranges such as 1-10, 11-100,101-1000, and 1000+ occupants. The range that
best describes the average occupancy of the building is circled. For example, if an office building appears to have a daytime occupancy of 200 persons, and an occupancy of only one or two persons otherwise, the maximum occupancy loadis 101-1000 persons. If the occupancy load isestimated from building size and use, an insertedasterisk will automatically indicate that these areapproximate data.
Nonstructural falling hazards such as chimneys, parapets, cornices, veneers, overhangs and heavycladding can pose life-safety hazards if notadequately anchored to the building. Althoughthese hazards may be present, the basic lateral-
load system for the building may be adequate andrequire no further review. A series of four boxeshave been included to indicate the presence of nonstructural falling hazards (see Figure 3-6). Thefalling hazards of major concern are:
• Unreinforced Chimneys. Unreinforcedmasonry chimneys are common in older masonry and wood-frame dwellings. They areoften inadequately tied to the house and fallwhen strongly shaken. If in doubt as towhether a chimney is reinforced or unreinforced, assume it is unreinforced.
• Parapets. Unbraced parapets are difficult toidentify from the street as it is sometimesdifficult to tell if a facade projects above theroofline. Parapets often exist on three sides of the building, and their height may be visiblefrom the back of the structure.
• Heavy Cladding . Large heavy claddingelements, usually precast concrete or cut
Figure 3-6 Portion of Data Collection Form fordocumenting nonstructural falling hazards.
24 3: Completing the Data Collection Form FEMA 154
stone, may fall off the building during anearthquake if improperly anchored. The lossof panels may also create major changes to the building stiffness (the elements are considerednonstructural but often contribute substantialstiffness to a building), thus setting up planirregularities or torsion when only some fall.(Glass curtain walls are not considered as
heavy cladding in the RVS procedure.) Theexistence of heavy cladding is of concern if the connections were designed and installed before the jurisdiction adopted seismicanchorage requirements (normally twice thatfor gravity loads). The date of such codeadoption will vary with jurisdiction and should be established by an experienced design professional in the planning stages of the RVS process (see Section 2.4.2).
If any of the above nonstructural fallinghazards exist, the appropriate box should be
checked. If there are any other falling hazards, the“Other” box should be checked, and the type of hazard indicated on the line beneath this box. Usethe comments section if additional space isrequired.
The RVS authority may later use thisinformation as a basis for notifying the owner of potential problems.
3.7 Identifying the Lateral-Load-Resisting System andDocumenting the Related BasicStructural Score
The RVS procedure is based on the premise thatthe screener will be able to determine the building’s lateral-load-resisting system from thestreet, or to eliminate all those that it cannot possibly be. It is further assumed that the lateral-load-resisting system is one of fifteen types thathave been observed to be prevalent, based onstudies of building stock in the United States. Thefifteen types are consistent with the model building types identified in the FEMA 310 Reportand the predecessor documents that haveaddressed seismic evaluation of buildings (e.g.,
ATC, 1987; BSSC, 1992)). The fifteen model building types used in this document, however, arean abbreviated subset of the 22 types nowconsidered standard by FEMA; excluded from theFEMA 154 list are sub-classifications of certainframing types that specify that the roof and floor diaphragms are either rigid or flexible.
3.7.1 Fifteen Building Types Considered
by the RVS Procedure and Related
Basic Structural Scores
Following are the fifteen building types used in theRVS procedure. Alpha-numeric reference codesused on the Data Collection Form are shown in parentheses.
1. Light wood-frame residential and commercial buildings smaller than or equal to 5,000 squarefeet (W1)
2. Light wood-frame buildings larger than 5,000square feet (W2)
3. Steel moment-resisting frame buildings (S1)
4. Braced steel frame buildings (S2)
5. Light metal buildings (S3)
6. Steel frame buildings with cast-in-placeconcrete shear walls (S4)
7. Steel frame buildings with unreinforcedmasonry infill walls (S5)
8. Concrete moment-resisting frame buildings(C1)
9. Concrete shear-wall buildings (C2)
10. Concrete frame buildings with unreinforcedmasonry infill walls (C3)
11. Tilt-up buildings (PC1)
12. Precast concrete frame buildings (PC2)
13. Reinforced masonry buildings with flexiblefloor and roof diaphragms (RM1)
14. Reinforced masonry buildings with rigid floor and roof diaphragms (RM2)
For each of these fifteen model building types,a Basic Structural Hazard Score has beencomputed that reflects the estimated likelihoodthat building collapse will occur if the building issubjected to the maximum considered earthquake
ground motions for the region. The BasicStructural Hazard Scores are based on the damageand loss estimation functions provided in theFEMA-funded HAZUS damage and lossestimation methodology (NIBS, 1999). For moreinformation about the development of the BasicStructural Hazard Scores, see the companionFEMA 155 report (ATC, 2002).
The Basic Structural Scores are provided oneach Data Collection Form in the first row of the
FEMA 154 3: Completing the Data Collection Form 25
structural scoring matrix in the lower portion of the Data Collection Form (see Figure 3-7). In highand moderate seismicity regions, these scoresapply to buildings built after the initial adoptionand enforcement of seismic codes, but before therelatively recent significant improvement of codes(that is, before the applicable benchmark year, asdefined in Table 2-2). In low seismicity regions,
they apply to all buildings except those designedand constructed after the applicable benchmark year, as defined in Table 2-2.
A key issue to be addressed in the planningstage (as recommended in Section 2.4.2) is theidentification of those years in which seismiccodes were initially adopted and later significantlyimproved. If the RVS authority in high andmoderate seismicity regions is unsure of theyear(s) in which codes were initially adopted, thedefault year for all but PC1 (tiltup) buildings is1941, (the default year specified in the HAZUScriteria, NIBS, 1999). For PC1 (tiltup) buildings,
the initial year in which effective seismic codeswere specified is 1973 (ICBO, 1973). Asdescribed in Sections 3.8.5 and 3.8.6, the DataCollection Form includes Score Modifiers that provide a means for modifying the BasicStructural Hazard Score as a function of designand construction date.
Brief summaries of the physical characteristicsand expected earthquake performance of each of
the fifteen model building types, along with a photograph of a sample exterior view, and the
Basic Structural Scores for regions of low (L),moderate (M), and high (H) seismicity are provided in Table 3-1.
Additional background information on the physical characteristics and earthquake performance of these building types, not essentialto the RVS procedure, is provided in Appendix E.
3.7.2 Identifying the Lateral-Force-
Resisting System
At the heart of the RVS procedure is the task of identifying the lateral-force-resisting system from
the street. Once the lateral-force-resisting systemis identified, the screener finds the appropriatealpha-numeric code on the Data Collection Formand circles the Basic Structural Hazard Scoreimmediately beneath it (see Figure 3-7).
Ideally, the lateral-force-resisting system for each building to be screened would be identified prior to field work through the review andinterpretation of construction documents for each building (i.e., during the planning stage, asdiscussed in Section 2.7).
If prior determination of the lateral-force-resisting system is not possible through the review
of building plans, which is the most likelyscenario, this determination must be made in thefield. In this case, the screener reviews spacingand size of windows, and the apparentconstruction materials to determine the lateral-force resisting system. If the screener cannotidentify with complete assuredness the lateral-force-resisting system from the street, the screener should enter the building interior to verify the building type selected (see Section 3.7.3 for additional information on this issue.)
If the screener cannot determine the lateral-force-resisting system, and access to the interior isnot possible, the screener should eliminate thoselateral-force-resisting systems that are not possibleand assume that any of the others are possible. Inthis case the Basic Structural Hazard Scores for all possible lateral-force-resisting systems would becircled on the Data Collection Form. Moreguidance and options pertaining to this issue are provided in Section 3.9.
Figure 3-7. Portion of Data CollectionForm containing BasicStructural Hazard Scores.
FEMA 154 3: Completing the Data Collection Form 27
S1Steelmoment-resisting frame
H = 2.8M = 3.6L = 4.6
● Typical steel moment-resist-ing frame structures usuallyhave similar bay widths in
both the transverse and longi-tudinal directions, around20-30 ft.
● The floor diaphragms are usu-ally concrete, sometimes oversteel decking. This structuraltype is used for commercial,institutional and public build-ings.
● The 1994 Northridge and1995 Kobe earthquakesshowed that the welds in steelmoment- frame buildingswere vulnerable to severedamage. The damage took the
form of broken connectionsbetween the beams and col-umns.
S2Braced steelframe
Zoom-in of upper photo
H = 3.0M = 3.6L = 4.8
● These buildings are bracedwith diagonal members,which usually cannot bedetected from the building exterior.
● Braced frames are sometimesused for long and narrowbuildings because of their stiff-ness.
● From the building exterior, it isdifficult to tell the difference
between steel moment frames, steel braced frames,and steel frames with interiorconcrete shear walls.
● In recent earthquakes, bracedframes were found to havedamage to brace connec-tions, especially at the lowerlevels.
Table 3-1 Build Type Descriptions, Basic Structural Hazard Scores, and Performance in Past Earthquakes(Continued)
BuildingIdentifier Photograph
Basic StructuralHazard Score Characteristics and Performance
42 3: Completing the Data Collection Form FEMA 154
Figure 3-20 Location on Data Collection Formwhere the final score, comments, andan indication if the building needsdetailed evaluation are documented.
score. This is a conservative approach, andhas the disadvantage that it may be tooconservative and the assigned score mayindicate that the building presents a greater risk than it actually does. This conservativeapproach will not pose problems in caseswhere all the possible remaining buildingtypes result in scores below the cut-off value.In all these cases the building hascharacteristics that justify further reviewanyway by a design professional experiencedin seismic design.
2. If the screener has little or no confidenceabout any choice for the structural system, thescreener should write DNK below the word“Building Type” (see Figure 3-7), whichindicates the screener does not know. In thiscase there should be an automatic default tothe need for a detailed review of the building by an experienced design professional. A more
detailed field inspection would includeentering the building, and examining the basement, roof, and all structural elements.
Which of these two options the RVS authoritywishes to adopt should be decided in the RVS planning phase (see Section 2.3).
3.10 Photographing the Building
At least one photograph of the building should be
taken for identification purposes. The screener isnot limited to one photograph. A photographcontains much more information, although perhapsless emphasized, than the elevation sketch. Large buildings are difficult to photograph from thestreet and the camera lens introduces distortion for high-rise buildings. If possible, the photographshould be taken from a sufficient distance toinclude the whole building, and such that adjacentfaces are included. A wide angle or a zoom lensmay be helpful. Strong sunlit facades should beavoided, as harsh contrasts between shadows andsunlit portions of the facade will be introduced.
Lastly, if possible, the front of the building shouldnot be obscured by trees, vehicles or other objects,as they obscure the lower (and often the mostimportant) stories.
3.11 Comments Section
This last section of the form (see Figure 3-20) isfor recording any comments the screener maywish to make regarding the building, occupancy,condition, quality of the data or unusualcircumstances of any type. For example, if not allsignificant details can be effectively photographed
or drawn, the screener could describe additionalimportant information in the comments area.Comments may be made on the strength of mortar used in a masonry wall, or building features thatcan be seen at or through window openings. Other examples where comments are helpful aredescribed throughout Chapter 3.
FEMA 154 5: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 51
second and 1.0 second. These reduced values werecompared to the criteria in Table 2-1 to determinethat the reduced (using the 2/3 factor) USGSassigned motions met the “high seismicity” criteriafor both short-period and long-period motions(that is, 1.40 g is greater than 0.5 g for the 0.2second [short-period] motions, and 0.59 g isgreater than 0.2 g for the 1.0 second [long-period]
motions). All other zip codes in Anyplace weresimilarly input to the USGS web site, and theresults indicated high seismicity in all cases. Onthis basis the RVS authority selected the DataCollection Form for high seismicity (Figure 5-2).
Using the checklist of Table 2-3, the RVSauthority reviewed the Data Collection Form todetermine if the occupancy categories andoccupancy loads were useful for their purposesand evaluated other parameters on the form,deciding that no changes were needed. The RVSauthority also conferred with the chief building
official, the department’s plan checkers, and localdesign professionals to establish key seismic codeadoption dates for the various building lateral-load-resisting systems considered by the RVS andfor anchorage of heavy cladding. It wasdetermined that Anyplace adopted seismic codesfor W1, W2, S1, S5, C1, C3, RM1, and RM2 building types in 1933, and that seismic codeswere never adopted for URM buildings (after 1933they were no longer permitted to be built). For S2,S3, S4 and PC2 buildings, it was assumed for purposes of the RVS procedure that seismic codeswere adopted in 1941, using the default year
recommended in Section 2.4.2. For PC1 buildings, it was assumed that seismic codes werefirst adopted in 1973 (per the guidance provided inSection 2.4.2). It was also determined thatseismically rehabilitated URM buildings should betreated as buildings designed in accordance with aseismic code (that is, treated as if they weredesigned in 1933 or thereafter). Because Anyplacehas been consistently adopting the Uniform Building Code since the early 1960s, benchmark years for all building types, except URM, weretaken from the “UBC” column in Table 2-2. Theyear in which seismic anchorage requirements for
heavy cladding was determined to be 1967. Thesefindings were indicated on the Quick ReferenceGuide (See Figure 5-3).
5.4 Step 4: Qualifications andTraining for Screeners
Anyplace USA selected RVS screeners from twosources: the staff of the Department of Buildingand Planning, and junior-level engineers fromlocal engineering offices, who were hired on atemporary consulting basis. Training was carriedout by one of the department’s most experienced plan checkers, who spent approximately 24 hoursreading the FEMA 154 Handbook and preparingtraining materials.
As recommended in this Handbook , thetraining was conducted in a classroom setting andconsisted of: (1) discussions of lateral-force-resisting systems and how they behave whensubjected to seismic loads; (2) how to use the DataCollection Form and the Quick Reference Guide;(3) a review of the Basic Structural Hazard Scoresand Score Modifiers; (4) what to look for in thefield; (5) how to account for uncertainty; and (6)an exercise in which screeners were shown interior and exterior photographs of buildings and asked toidentify the lateral-load-resisting system andvertical and plan irregularities. The training classalso included focused group interaction sessions, principally in relation to the identification of structural systems and irregularities using exterior
and interior photographs. Screeners were alsoinstructed on items to take into the field.
5.5 Step 5: Acquisition and Reviewof Pre-Field Data
As described in the Pre-Field Planning process(Step 2 above), the RVS authority of AnyplaceUSA already had electronic GIS reference tables
containing street addresses and parcel numbers for most of the buildings in the city. These data(addresses and parcel numbers) were extractedfrom the electronic GIS system (see screen captureof GIS display showing parcel number and other available information for an example site, Figure5-4) and imported into a standard off-the-shelf electronic database as a table. To facilitate later
58 5: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
Example 2: 3711 Roxbury Street
Upon arrival at the site, the screeners observed the building as a whole (Figure 5-9). Unlike Example1, there was little information in the buildingidentification portion of the form (only streetaddress, zip code, and parcel number were provided). The screeners determined the number of stories to be 12 and the building use to becommercial and office. They paced off the building plan dimensions to estimate the plan sizeto be 58 feet x 50 feet. Based on this information,the total square footage was estimated to be34,800 square feet (12 x 50 x 58), and the number of stories, use, and square footage were written onthe form. Based on a review of information inAppendix D of this Handbook , the year of construction was estimated to be 1944 and thisdate was written on the form.
A sketch of the plan and elevation views of the building were drawn in the “Sketch” portion of theform.
The building use was circled in the“Occupancy” portion, and from Section 3 of theQuick Reference Guide, the occupancy load wasestimated at 34,800/135♦ = 258. Hence, theoccupancy range of 101-1000 was circled.
The cornices at roof level were observed, andentered on the form.
Noting that the estimated construction datewas 1944 and that it was a 12-story building , areview of the material in Table D-6 (Appendix D),indicated that the likely options for building typewere S1, S2, S5, C1, C2, or C3. On more carefulexamination of the building exterior with the use
of binoculars (see Figure 5-10), it was determinedthe building was type C3, and this alpha-numericcode, and accompanying Basic Structural Score,were circled on the Data Collection Form.
Because the building was high-rise (more than7 stories), this modifier was circled, and becausethe four individual towers extending above the base represented a vertical irregularity, thismodifier was circled. Noting that the soil is typeD, as already determined during the pre-field dataacquisition phase and indicated in the Soil Type portion of the form, the modifier for Soil Type Dwas circled.
By adding the column of circled numbers, aFinal Score of 0.5 was determined. Because thisscore was less than the cut-off score of 2.0, the building required a detailed evaluation by anexperienced seismic design professional. Lastly,
♦ The “135” value is the approximate average of themid-range occupancy load for commercial buildings(125 sq. ft. per person) and the mid-range occupancyload for office buildings (150 sq. ft. per person).
an instant camera photo of the building wasattached to the Data Collection Form (a completedversion of the form is provided in Figure 5-11).
Figure 5-9 Exterior view of 3711 Roxbury.
Figure 5-10 Close-up view of 3711 RoxburyStreet building exterior showing infill frame construction.
60 5: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
Example 3: 5020 Ebony Drive
Example 3 was a high-rise residential building(Figure 5-12) in a new part of the city in whichnew development had begun within the last fewyears. The building was not included in theelectronic Building RVS Database, andconsequently there was not a partially prepared
Data Collection Form for this building. Based onvisual inspection, the screeners determined that the building had 22 stories, including a tall-story penthouse, estimated that it was designed in 1996,and concluded that its use was both commercial(in the first story) and residential in the upper stories. The screeners paced off the building plandimensions to estimate the plan size to beapproximately 270 feet x 180 feet. Based on thisinformation and considering the symmetric butnon-rectangular floor plan, the total square footagewas estimated to be 712,800 square feet. Thesedata were written on the form, along with the
names of the screeners and the date of thescreening. The screeners also drew a sketch of a portion of the plan view of the building in thespace on the form allocated for a “Sketch”.
The building use (commercial and residential)was circled in the “Occupancy” portion, and fromSection 3 of the Quick Reference Guide, theoccupancy load was estimated at 712,800/200 =3,564. Based on this information, the occupancyrange of 1000+ was circled.
While the screeners reasonably could haveassumed a type D soil, which was the condition atthe adjacent site approximately ½ mile away, theyconcluded they had no basis for assigning a soiltype. Hence they followed the instructions in the Handbook (Section 3.4), which specifies that if there is no basis for assigning a soil type, soil typeE should be assumed. Accordingly, this soil typewas circled on the form.
Given the design date of 1996, the anchoragefor the heavy cladding on the exterior of the building was assumed to have been designed tomeet the anchorage requirements initially adoptedin 1967 (per the information on the Quick Reference Guide). No other falling hazards were
observed.The window spacing in the upper stories andthe column spacing at the first floor level indicatedthe building was either a steel moment-frame building, or a concrete moment-frame building.The screeners attempted to view the interior butwere not provided with permission to do so. Theyelected to indicate that the building was either anS1 or C1 type on the Data Collection Form and
circled both types, along with their BasicStructural Scores. In addition, the screenerscircled the modifiers for high rise (8 stories or more) and post-benchmark year, given that theestimated design date (1996) occurred after the benchmark years for both S1 and C1 buildingtypes (per the information on the Quick ReferenceGuide). They also circled the modifier for soiltype E (in both the S1 and C1 columns).
By adding the circled numbers in both the S1and C1 columns, Final Scores of 3.6 and 3.3respectively were determined for the two building
types. Because both scores were greater than thecut-off score of 2.0, a detailed evaluation of the building by an experienced seismic design professional was not required. Before leaving thesite, the screeners photographed the building andattached the photo to the Data Collection Form. Acompleted version of the Data Collection Form is provided in Figure 5-13.
62 5: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
Figure 5-15 Building identification portion of Data Collection Form for Example 4, 1450 Addison Avenue.
Example 4: 1450 Addison Avenue
The building at 1450 Addison Avenue (see Figure5-14) was a 1-story commercial building designedin 1990, per the information provided in the building identification portion of the DataCollection Form. By inspection the screenersconfirmed the address, number of stories, use(commercial), and year built (Figure 5-15). Thescreeners paced off the building plan dimensionsto estimate the plan size (estimated to be 10,125
square feet), confirming the square footage shownon the identification portion of the form. The L-shaped building was drawn on the form, alongwith the dimensions of the various legs.
The building’s commercial use was circled inthe “Occupancy” portion, and from Section 3 of the Quick Reference Guide, the occupancy loadwas estimated at 10,200/125 = 80. Hence, the
occupancy range of 11-100 was circled. No fallinghazards were observed.
The building type (W2) was circled on theform along with its Basic Structural Score.Because the building was L-shaped in plan themodifier for plan irregularity was circled. Becausesoil type C had been circled in the Soil Type box(based on the information in the Building RVSDatabase) the modifier for soil type C was circled.
By adding the column of circled numbers, a
Final Score of 5.3 was determined. Because thisscore was greater than the cut-off score of 2.0, the building did not require a detailed evaluation by anexperienced seismic design professional. Lastly,an instant camera photo of the building wasattached to the Data Collection Form. Acompleted version of the form is provided inFigure 5-16.
64 5: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154
5.8 Step 8: Transferring the RVSField Data to the ElectronicBuilding RVS Database
The last step in the implementation of rapid visualscreening for Anyplace USA was transferring theinformation on the RVS Data Collection Formsinto the relational electronic Building RVSDatabase. This required that all photos andsketches on the forms be scanned and numbered(for reference purposes), and that additional fields(and tables) be added to the database for thoseattributes not originally included in the database.
For quality control purposes, data wereentered separately into two different versions of the electronic database, except photographs and
sketches, which were scanned only once. Adouble-entry data verification process was thenused, whereby the data from one database werecompared to the same entries in the seconddatabase to identify those entries that were notexactly the same. Non-identical entries wereexamined and corrected as necessary. The entire process, including scanning of sketches and
photographs, required approximately 45 minutes per Data Collection Form.
After the electronic Building RVS Databasewas verified, it was imported into the city’s GIS,thereby providing Anyplace with a state-of-the-artcapability to identify and plot building groups based on any set of criteria desired by the city’s policy makers. Photographs and sketches of individual buildings could also be shown in theGIS simply by clicking on the dot or symbol usedto represent each building and selecting thedesired image.
FEMA 154 C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings 83
Appendix C
Review of Design andConstruction Drawings
Drawing styles vary among engineering offices, butthe conventions used are very consistent. The fol-lowing are some of the common designations:
1. Around the perimeter of the building, the exterior walls will be shown as a double line, if the space between the lines is empty, this will usually be awood stud wall.
2. Concrete walls will be shaded.
3. Masonry walls will be cross hatched.4. Horizontal beams and girders will be shown with
a solid line for steel and wood, and a double solidor dotted line for concrete.
● Steel framing will have a notation of shape,depth, and weight of the member. The desig-nations will include W, S, I, B and severalothers followed by the depth in inches, an“x,” and the weight in pounds per lineal foot.An example would be W8x10 (wide flangeshape, 8” deep, 10 lbs/ft).
● Wood framing will have the width and depthof the member. An example would be 4x10(4” wide and 10” deep). Floor joists and roof rafters will be shown with the same call-outexcept not all members will be shown. Afew at each end of the area being framed willshow and there will be an arrow showing theextent and the call-out of the size members.
● Concrete framing will have the width anddepth. Where steel and wood are shown as
single line, concrete will be shown as a dou- ble line. An example of the call out would be 12x24 (12” wide and 24” deep). Addi-tionally, or in lieu of the number call-out, themember might be given a letter and number (B-1 or G-1) with a reference to a schedulefor the size and reinforcing. “B” stands for beam and “G” stands for girder. Usually, beams are smaller than girders and span between girders while girders will be larger
and frame between columns.
5. Columns will show on the floor plans as their shape with a shading designation where appro- priate:
● Steel column will be shown as an “H”rotated to the correct orientation for the loca-tion on the plan.
● Wood column will be an open square.
● Concrete column will be either a square or acircle depending on the column configura-tion. The square or circle will beshaded.
6. Steel moment frames will show the columns witha heavy line between the columns representingthe beam or girder. At each end of the beam or girder at the column will be a small triangleshaded. This indicates that the connection between the beam or girder and the column isfully restrained.
FEMA 154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age 85
Appendix D
Exterior Screening for SeismicSystem and Age
D.1 Introduction
A successful evaluation of a building is dependent onthe screener’s ability to identify accurately the con-struction materials, lateral-force-resisting system,age, and other attributes that would modify its earth-quake performance (e.g., vertical or plan irregulari-ties). This appendix includes discussions of inspection techniques that can be used while viewingfrom the street.
D.2 What to Look for and How to Find It
It may be difficult to identify positively the structuraltype from the street as building veneers often mask the structural skeleton. For example, a steel frameand a concrete frame may look similar from the out-side. Features typical of a specific type of structuremay give clues for successful identification. In somecases there may be more than one type of frame present in the structure. Should this be the case, the predominant frame type should be indicated on theform.
Following are attributes that should be consid-
ered when trying to determine a building lateral-force-resisting system from the street:
1. Age: The approximate age of a building can indi-cate the possible structure type, as well as indi-cating the seismic design code used during the building design process. Age is difficult to deter-mine visually, but an approximation, accuratewithin perhaps a decade, can be estimated bylooking at the architectural style and detail treat-ment of the building exterior, if the facade hasnot been renovated. If a building has been reno-vated, the apparent age is misleading. See Sec-
tion D.3 for additional guidance.2. Facade Pattern: The type of structure can some-
times be deduced by the openness of the facade,or the size and pattern of window openings. Thefacade material often can give hints to the struc-ture beneath. Newer facade materials likely indi-cate that modern construction types were used inthe design and may indicate that certain buildingtypes can be eliminated.
3. Height : The number of stories will indicate the possible type of construction. This is particularlyuseful for taller buildings, when combined withknowledge of local building practice. See Sec-tion D.4 for additional guidance.
4. Original Use: The original use can, at times, givehints as to the structural type. The original usecan be inferred from the building character, if the building has not been renovated. The present usemay be different from the original use. This is
especially true in neighborhoods that havechanged in character. A typical example of this iswhere a city’s central business district has grownrapidly, and engulfed what were once industrialdistricts. The buildings’ use has changed andthey are now either mixed office, commercial or residential (for office workers).
D.3 Identification of Building Age
The ability to identify the age of a building by con-sidering its architectural style and construction mate-rials requires an extensive knowledge of architectural
history and past construction practice. It is beyondthe scope of this Handbook to discuss the variousstyles and construction practices. Persons involved inor interested in buildings often have a general knowl-edge of architectural history relevant to their region.Interested readers should refer to in-depth texts for more specific information.
Photographs, architectural character, and age of (1) residential, (2) commercial, and (3) mixed useand miscellaneous buildings, are illustrated inTables D-1 through D-3, respectively. Photographsof several example steel frame and concrete frame buildings under construction are provided in
Figure D-1. The screener should study these photo-graphs and characteristics closely to assist in differ-entiating architectural styles and facade treatment of various periods. Facade renovation (see photos b andc in Figure D-1) can clearly alter the original appear-ance. When estimating building age, the screener should look at the building from all sides as facaderenovation often occurs only at the building front. Anew building will seldom look like an old one. That
FEMA 154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age 89
is, a building is usually at least as old as it looks.Even when designed to look old, telltale signs of modern techniques can usually be seen in the type of windows, fixtures, and material used.
D.4 Identification of Structural Type
The most common inspection that will be utilizedwith the RVS procedure will be the exterior or “side-walk” or “streetside” survey. First, the evaluationshould be as thorough as possible and performed in a
logical manner. The street-facing front of the build-ing is the starting point and the evaluation begins atthe ground and progressively moves up the exterior wall to the roof or parapet line. For taller buildings, a pair of binoculars is useful. When a thorough inspec-tion of the street-front elevation has been completed,the procedure is repeated on the next accessible wall. From the exterior, the screener should be able todetermine the approximate age of the building, itsoriginal occupancy, and count the number of stories.
k. Post-1975
m. Post-1975
l. Post-1975
n. Post-1975
Post-1975
● Flat roof, typically with nocornice.
● Building is square or rect-
angular for its full height,fewer setbacks.
● First story and top storycan be taller than otherstories. (In some cases,though, the top storycould be shorter than oth-ers.)
● Exterior finishes: metal orglass, pre-cast stone orconcrete, with little orna-mentation
● Floors are concrete slabsover steel or concrete
beams.Common Structure Types:S1, S2, S4, C1, C2
o. Post-1975
Table D-2 Illustrations, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Commercial Structures (Continued)
FEMA 154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age 91
With this information, Tables D-4 through D-7 pro-vide the most likely structural system type, based onoriginal occupancy and number of stories. (Thesetables are based on expert judgment and would bene-fit from verification by design professionals and
building regulatory personnel familiar with localdesign and construction practices.)
In addition to using information on occupancyand number of stories, as provided in Tables D-4through D-7, the following are some locations that
a. Building above is a high-rise steel dual system − moment frame (heavy columns and beams on upperfacade) with bracing around elevator core. Fireproof-ing is being applied to steel at mid-height (inside theshroud) and precast facade elements are being attached to frame in lower stories.
b. Reinforced concrete frame under renovation − dem-olition of older facade units.
c. New precast facade units being applied to rein-forced concrete frame buildings.
Figure D-1 Photos showing basic construction, in steel-frame buildings and reinforced concrete-framebuildings.
Note: If it is not possible to identify immediately the structural type for a 1930-1945 building, the original occu-pancy and number of stories will provide some guidance. The building will need further inspection for preciseidentification.
94 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA 154
the screener can look, without performing destructiveinvestigations, to gain insight into the structure type:
1. In newer frame construction the columns areoften exposed on the exterior in the first story. If the columns are covered with a facade material,they are most likely steel columns, indicating asteel frame. If the frames are concrete, they are
usually exposed and not covered with a facade.See Figures D-2 and D-3.
2. Some structures use a combination of shear wallsin the transverse direction and frames in the lon-gitudinal direction. This can be seen from theexterior as the shear walls usually extend throughthe exterior longitudinal wall and are exposedthere. This is most common in hotels and other residential structures where balconies areincluded. See Figure D-4.
3. An inspection of doorways and window framingcan determine wall thickness. When the thick-
ness exceeds approximately 12 inches, the wall ismost likely unreinforced masonry (URM).
4. If there are vertical joints in the wall, regularlyspaced and extending to the full height, the wallis constructed of concrete, and if three or less sto-ries in height, the structure type is most likely atilt-up (PC1). See Figure D-5.
5. If the building is constructed of brick masonrywithout header courses (horizontal rows of visi- ble brick ends), and the wall thickness is approx-
imately 8 inches, the structural type is mostlikely reinforced masonry (RM1 or RM2). SeeFigure D-6.
6. If the exterior wall shows large concrete block units (approximately 8 to 12 inches high and 12to 16 inches in length), either smooth or rough
faced, the structure type may be reinforced con-crete block masonry. See Figure D-7.
Because many buildings have been renovated, thescreener should know where to look for clues to theoriginal construction. Most renovations are done for commercial retail spaces, as businesses like to havean up-to-date image. Most exterior renovations areonly to the front of the building or to walls thatattract attention. Therefore, the original construction
Figure D-2 Building with exterior columns coveredwith a facade material.
Figure D-3 Detail of the column facade of Figure D-2.
Figure D-4 Building with both shear walls (in theshort direction) and frames (in the long direction).
FEMA 154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age 95
can often be seen at the sides, or the rear, where peo- ple generally do not look. If the original material iscovered in these areas, it is often just painted or lightly plastered. In this case, the pattern of the older material can often still be seen.
Clues helping identify the original material areapparent if one is looking for them. Two examplesare included here:
● Figure D-8 shows a building with a 1970s pol-ished stone and glass facade. The side of the
building indicates that it is a pre-1930 URM bearing-wall structure.
● Figure D-9 shows a building facade with typical1960s material. The side was painted. Showingthrough the paint, the horizontal board patterns inthe poured-in-place concrete wall of pre-1940construction could still be seen.
D.5 Characteristics of Exposed Con-struction Materials
Accurate identification of the structural type oftendepends on the ability to recognize the exposed con-struction material. The screener should be familiar
Figure D-5 Regular, full-height joints in a building’swall indicate a concrete tilt-up.
Figure D-6 Reinforced masonry wall showing no
course of header bricks (a row of visiblebrick ends).
Figure D-7 Reinforced masonry building withexterior wall of concrete masonry units, orconcrete blocks.
96 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA 154
with how different materials look on existing build-ings as well as how they have been installed. Brief descriptions of some common materials are included
walls, when they are not veneers, are typicallyseveral wythes thick (a wythe is a term denotingthe width of one brick). Therefore, header brickswill be apparent in the exposed surface. Headersare bricks laid with the butt end on the exterior face, and function to tie wythes of brickstogether. Header courses typically occur everysix or seven courses. (See Figures D-10 andD-11.) Sometimes, URM infill walls will nothave header bricks, and the wythes of brick areheld together only by mortar. Needless to say,URM will look old, and most of the time showwear and weathering. URM may also have a softsand-lime mortar which may be detected byscratching with a knife, unless the masonry has been repointed.
● Reinforced Masonry — Most reinforced brick walls are constructed using the hollow groutmethod. Two wythes of bricks are laid with a
hollow space in between. This space contains thereinforcement steel and is grouted afterward (seeFigure D-12). This method of construction usu-ally does not include header bricks in the wallsurface.
● Masonry Veneer — Masonry veneers can be of several types, including prefabricated panels,thin brick texture tiles, and a single wythe of brick applied onto the structural backing.Figures D-13 shows brick veneer panels. Notethe discontinuity of the brick pattern interrupted by the vertica1 gaps. This indicates that the sur-
face is probably a veneer panel. The scupper opening at the top of the wall, probably to let therainwater on the roof to drain, also indicates thatthis is a thin veneer rather than a solid masonry
Figure D-9 A concrete shear-wall structure with a1960s renovated facade.
Figure D-10 URM wall showing header courses(identified by arrows) and two washerplates indicating wall anchors.
Figure D-11 Drawing of two types of masonry pattern showing header bricks (shown with stipples).
FEMA 154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age 97
wall. Good places to look for the evidence of
veneer tile are at door or window openings wherethe edge of the tile will usually show.
● Hollow Clay Tile — The exposed area of a hollowclay tile masonry unit is approximately 6 inches by 10 inches and often has strip indentations run-ning the length of the tile. They are fragile, unre-inforced, and without structural value, andusually are used for non-load-bearing walls.
Figure D-14 shows a typical wall panel whichhas been punctured.
● False Masonry — Masonry pattern sidings can bemade from sheet metal, plastic, or asphalt mate-rial (see Figures D-15 and D-16). These sidingscome in sheets and are attached to a structural backing, usually a wood frame. These sidingscan be detected by looking at the edges and bytheir sound when tapped.
● Cast-in-Place Concrete — Cast-in-place concrete, before the 1940s, will likely show horizontal pat-terns from the wooden formwork. The formwork was constructed with wood planks, and thereforethe concrete also will often show the wood grain pattern. Since the plank edges were not smooth,
Figure D-12 Diagram of common reinforced masonryconstruction. Bricks are left out of thebottom course at intervals to createcleanout holes, then inserted beforegrouting.
Figure D-13 Brick veneer panels.
Figure D-14 Hollow clay tile wall with punctured tile.
Figure D-15 Sheet metal siding with masonry pattern.
98 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA 154
the surface will have horizontal lines approxi-mately 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 inches apart (seeFigure D-17). Newer cast-in-place concretecomes in various finishes. The most economicfinish is that in which the concrete is cast against plywood formwork, which will reflect the woodgrain appearance of plywood, or against metal or plastic-covered wood forms, which normally do
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 99
Appendix E
Characteristics and EarthquakePerformance of RVS Building Types
E.1 Introduction
For the purpose of the RVS, building structural fram-ing types have been categorized into fifteen typeslisted in Section 3.7.1 and shown in Table 3-1. Thisappendix provides additional information about eachof these structural types, including detailed descrip-tions of their characteristics, common types of earth-quake damage, and common seismic rehabilitationtechniques.
E.2 Wood Frame (W1, W2)
E.2.1 Characteristics
Wood frame structures are usually detached residen-tial dwellings, small apartments, commercial build-ings or one-story industrial structures. They arerarely more than three stories tall, although older buildings may be as high as six stories, in rareinstances. (See Figures E-1 and E-2)
Wood stud walls are typically constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch wood members vertically set about 16inches apart. (See Figures E-3 and E-4). These wallsare braced by plywood or equivalent material, or bydiagonals made of wood or steel. Many detached sin-gle family and low-rise multiple family residences inthe United States are of stud wall wood frame con-struction.
Post and beam construction, which consists of larger rectangular (6 inch by 6 inch and larger) or sometimes round wood columns framed together with large wood beams or trusses, is not common andis found mostly in older buildings. These buildingsusually are not residential, but are larger buildings
such as warehouses, churches and theaters.Timber pole buildings (Figures E-5 and E-6) are
a less common form of construction found mostly insuburban and rural areas. Generally adequate seismi-cally when first built, they are more often subject towood deterioration due to the exposure of the col-umns, particularly near the ground surface. Together with an often-found “soft story” in this building type,this deterioration may contribute to unsatisfactoryseismic performance.
In the western United States, it can be assumedthat all single detached residential houses (i.e.,houses with rear and sides separate from adjacentstructures) are wood stud frame structures unlessvisual or supplemental information indicates other-wise (in the Southwestern U.S., for example, someresidential homes are constructed of adobe, rammedearth, and other non-wood materials). Many housesthat appear to have brick exterior facades are actuallywood frame with nonstructural brick veneer or brick- patterned synthetic siding.
In the central and eastern United States, brick walls are usually not veneer. For these houses the
Figure E-1 Single family residence (an example of the W1 identifier, light wood-frameresidential and commercial buildings less
100 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
brick-work must be examined closely to verify that itis real brick. Second, the thickness of the exterior wall is estimated by looking at a window or door opening. If the wall is more than 9 inches from the
interior finish to exterior surface, then it may be a brick wall. Third, if header bricks exist in the brick pattern, then it may be a brick wall. If these featuresall point to a brick wall, the house can be assumed to be a masonry building, and not a wood frame.
In wetter, humid climates it is common to findhomes raised four feet or more above the outsidegrade with this space totally exposed (no foundationwalls). This allows air flow under the house, to mini-
mize decay and rot problems associated with highhumidity and enclosed spaces. These houses are sup- ported on wood post and small precast concrete padsor piers. A common name for this construction is
post and pier construction.
E.2.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Stud wall buildings have performed well in pastearthquakes due to inherent qualities of the structuralsystem and because they are lightweight and low-rise. Cracks in any plaster or stucco may appear, butthese seldom degrade the strength of the building andare classified as nonstructural damage. In fact, this
Figure E-3 Drawing of wood stud frame construction.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 101
type of damage helps dissipate the earthquake-induced energy of the shaking house. The most com-mon type of structural damage in older buildingsresults from a lack of adequate connection betweenthe house and the foundation. Houses can slide off their foundations if they are not properly bolted tothe foundations. This movement (see Figure E-7)results in major damage to the building as well as to
plumbing and electrical connections. Overturning of
the entire structure is usually not a problem because
of the low-rise geometry. In many municipalities,modern codes require wood structures to be ade-quately bolted to their foundations. However, theyear that this practice was adopted will differ fromcommunity to community and should be checked.
Many of the older wood stud frame buildingshave no foundations or have weak foundations of unreinforced masonry or poorly reinforced concrete.These foundations have poor shear resistance to hori-zontal seismic forces and can fail.
Another problem in older buildings is the stabil-ity of cripple walls. Cripple walls are short stud walls between the foundation and the first floor level.
Often these have no bracing neither in-plane nor out-of-plane and thus may collapse when subjected tohorizontal earthquake loading. If the cripple wallscollapse, the house will sustain considerable damageand may collapse. In some older homes, plywoodsheathing nailed to the cripple studs may have beenused to rehabilitate the cripple walls. However, if thesheathing is not nailed adequately to the studs and
Figure E-4 Stud wall, wood-framed house.
Figure E-5 Drawing of timber pole framed house.
Figure E-6 Timber pole framed house.
Figure E-7 House off its foundation, 1983 Coalingaearthquake.
102 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
foundation sill plate, the cripple walls will still col-lapse (see Figure E-8).
Homes with post and pier perimeter foundations,which are constructed to provide adequate air flowunder the structure to minimize the potential for
decay, have little resistance to earthquake forces.When these buildings are subjected to strong earth-quake ground motions, the posts may rotate or slip of the piers and the home will settle to the ground. Aswith collapsed cripple walls, this can be very expen-sive damage to repair and will result in the home building “red-tagged” per the ATC-20 post-earth-quake safety evaluation procedures (ATC, 1989,1995). See Figure E-9.
Garages often have a large door opening in thefront wall with little or no bracing in the remainder of the wall. This wall has almost no resistance to lateralforces, which is a problem if a heavy load such as asecond story is built on top of the garage. Homes
built over garages have sustained damage in pastearthquakes, with many collapses. Therefore thehouse-over-garage configuration, which is foundcommonly in low-rise apartment complexes andsome newer suburban detached dwellings, should beexamined more carefully and perhaps rehabilitated.
Unreinforced masonry chimneys present a life-safety problem. They are often inadequately tied to
the house, and therefore fall when strongly shaken.On the other hand, chimneys of reinforced masonrygenerally perform well.
Some wood-frame structures, especially older buildings in the eastern United States, have masonryveneers that may represent another hazard. Theveneer usually consists of one wythe of brick (awythe is a term denoting the width of one brick)attached to the stud wall. In older buildings, theveneer is either insufficiently attached or has poor quality mortar, which often results in peeling of theveneer during moderate and large earthquakes.
Post and beam buildings (not buildings with postand pier foundations) tend to perform well in earth-quakes, if adequately braced. However, walls oftendo not have sufficient bracing to resist horizontalmotion and thus they may deform excessively.
E.2.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
In recent years, especially as a result of the Northridge earthquake, emphasis has been placed onaddressing the common problems associated withlight-wood framing. This work has concentratedmainly in the western United States with single-fam-ily residences.
The rehabilitation techniques focus on houseswith continuous perimeter foundations and cripplewalls. The rehabilitation work consists of bolting thehouse to the foundation and providing plywood or other wood sheathing materials to the cripple walls tostrengthen them (see Figure E-10). This is the mostcost-effective rehabilitation work that can be done ona single-family residence.
Little work has been done in rehabilitating tim- ber pole buildings or post and pier construction. Intimber pole buildings rehabilitation techniques arefocused on providing resistance to lateral forces by bracing (applying sheathing) to interior walls, creat-
ing a continuous load path to the ground. For homeswith post and pier perimeter foundations, the work has focused on providing partial foundations and bracing to carry the earthquake loads.
Figure E-8 Failed cripple stud wall, 1992 Big Bearearthquake.
Figure E-9 Failure of post and pier foundation,Humboldt County.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 103
E.3 Steel Frames (S1, S2)
E.3.1 CharacteristicsSteel frame buildings generally may be classified aseither moment-resisting frames or braced frames,
based on their lateral-force-resisting systems.Moment-resisting frames resist lateral loads anddeformations by the bending stiffness of the beamsand columns (there is no diagonal bracing). In con-centric braced frames the diagonal braces are con-nected, at each end, to the joints where beams andcolumns meet. The lateral forces or loads are resisted by the tensile and compressive strength of the brac-
ing. In eccentric braced frames, the bracing isslightly offset from the main beam-to-column con-nections, and the short section of beam is expected todeform significantly in bending under major seismicforces, thereby dissipating a considerable portion of the energy of the vibrating building. Each type of steel frame is discussed below.
Moment-Resisting Steel Frame
Typical steel moment-resisting frame structures usu-ally have similar bay widths in both the transverseand longitudinal direction, around 20-30 ft
(Figure E-11). The load-bearing frame consists of beams and columns distributed throughout the build-ing. The floor diaphragms are usually concrete,
Figure E-10 Seismic strengthening of a cripple wall,with plywood sheathing.
Figure E-11 Drawing of steel moment-resisting frame building.
104 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
sometimes over steel decking. Moment-resistingframe structures built since 1950 often incorporate prefabricated panels hung onto the structural frameas the exterior finish. These panels may be precastconcrete, stone or masonry veneer, metal, glass or plastic.
This structural type is used for commercial, insti-tutional and other public buildings. It is seldom used
for low-rise residential buildings.Steel frame structures built before 1945 are usu-
ally clad or infilled with unreinforced masonry suchas bricks, hollow clay tiles and terra cotta tiles andtherefore should be classified as S5 structures (seeSection E.6 for a detailed discussion). Other frame buildings of this period are encased in concrete.Wood or concrete floor diaphragms are common for these older buildings.
Braced Steel Frame
Braced steel frame structures (Figures E-12 and
E-13) have been built since the late 1800s with simi-lar usage and exterior finish as the steel moment-frame buildings. Braced frames are sometimes usedfor long and narrow buildings because of their stiff-ness. Although these buildings are braced with diag-onal members, the bracing members usually cannot be detected from the building exterior.
From the building exterior, it is usually difficultto tell the difference between steel moment frames, braced frames, and frames with shear walls. In mostmodern buildings, the bracing or shear walls arelocated in the interior or covered by cladding mate-rial. Figure E-14 shows heavy diagonal bracing for ahigh rise building, located at the side walls, which
will be subsequently covered by finish materials andwill not be apparent. In fact, it is difficult to differen-tiate steel frame structures and concrete frame struc-tures from the exterior. Most of the time, the
structural members are clad in finish material. Inolder buildings, steel members can also be encased inconcrete. There are no positive ways of distinguish-ing these various frame types except in the two caseslisted below:
1. If a building can be determined to be a bracedframe, it is probably a steel structure.
Figure E-12 Braced frame configurations.
Figure E-13 Braced steel frame, with chevron anddiagonal braces. The braces and steelframes are usually covered by finishmaterial after the steel is erected.
Figure E-14 Chevron bracing in steel building underconstruction.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 105
2. If exposed steel beams and columns can be seen,then the steel frame structure is apparent. (Espe-cially in older structures, a structural framewhich appears to be concrete may actually be asteel frame encased in concrete.)
E.3.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Steel frame buildings tend to be generally satisfac-tory in their earthquake resistance, because of their strength, flexibility and lightness. Collapse in earth-quakes has been very rare, although steel frame buildings did collapse, for example, in the 1985 Mex-ico City earthquake. In the United States, these build-ings have performed well, and probably will notcollapse unless subjected to sufficiently severeground shaking. The 1994 Northridge and 1995Kobe earthquakes showed that steel frame buildings(in particular S1 moment-frame) were vulnerable tosevere earthquake damage. Though none of the dam-aged buildings collapsed, they were rendered unsafe
until repaired. The damage took the form of brokenwelded connections between the beams and columns.Cracks in the welds began inside the welds where the beam flanges were welded to the column flanges.These cracks, in some cases, broke the welds or prop-agated into the column flange, “tearing” the flange.The damage was found in those buildings that experi-enced ground accelerations of approximately 20% of gravity (20%g) or greater. Since 1994 Northridge,many cities that experienced large earthquakes in therecent past have instituted an inspection program todetermine if any steel frames were damaged. Sincesteel frames are usually covered with a finish mate-
rial, it is difficult to find damage to the joints. The process requires removal of the finishes and removalof fireproofing just to see the joint.
Possible damage includes the following.
1. Nonstructural damage resulting from excessivedeflections in frame structures can occur to ele-ments such as interior partitions, equipment, andexterior cladding. Damage to nonstructural ele-ments was the reason for the discovery of dam-age to moment frames as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
2. Cladding and exterior finish material can fall if
insufficiently or incorrectly connected.
3. Plastic deformation of structural members cancause permanent displacements.
4. Pounding with adjacent structures can occur.
E.3.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
As a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake manysteel frame buildings, primarily steel moment frames,have been rehabilitated to address the problems dis-covered. The process is essentially to redo the con-nections, ensuring that cracks do not occur in thewelds. There is careful inspection of the welding pro-cess and the electrodes during construction. Where possible, existing full penetration welds of the beamsto the columns is changed so more fillet welding is
used. This means that less heat is used in the welding process and consequently there is less potential for damage. Other methods include reducing welding toan absolute minimum by developing bolted connec-tions or ensuring that the connection plates will yield(stretch permanently) before the welds will break.One other possibility for rehabilitating momentframes is to convert them to braced frames.
The kind of damage discovered was not limitedto moment frames, although they were the mostaffected. Some braced frames were found to havedamage to the brace connections, especially at lower levels.
Structural types other than steel frames are some-times rehabilitated using steel frames, as shown for
the concrete structure in Figure E-15. Probably themost common use of steel frames for rehabilitation isin unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings(URM). Steel frames are typically used at the store-front windows as there is no available horizontalresistance provided by the windows in their plane.Frames can be used throughout the first floor perime-ter when the floor area needs to be open, as in a res-taurant. See Figure E-16.
Figure E-15 Rehabilitation of a concrete parking structure using exterior X-braced steelframes.
106 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
When a building is encountered with this type of rehabilitation scheme, the building should be consid-ered a frame type building S1 or S2.
E.4 Light Metal (S3)
E.4.1 Characteristics
Most light metal buildings existing today were builtafter 1950 (Figure E-17).They are used for agricul-tural structures, industrial factories, and warehouses.They are typically one story in height, sometimeswithout interior columns, and often enclose a largefloor area. Construction is typically of steel framesspanning the short dimension of the building, resist-ing lateral forces as moment frames. Forces in thelong direction are usually resisted by diagonal steelrod bracing. These buildings are usually clad withlightweight metal or asbestos-reinforced concretesiding, often corrugated.
To identify this construction type, the screener
should look for the following characteristics: Figure E-16 Use of a braced frame to rehabilitate anunreinforced masonry building.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 107
1. Light metal buildings are typically characterized by industrial corrugated sheet metal or asbestos-reinforced cement siding. The term, “metal building panels” should not be confused with“corrugated sheet metal siding.” The former are prefabricated cladding units usually used for large office buildings. Corrugated sheet metalsiding is thin sheet material usually fastened to
purlins, which in turn span between columns. If this sheet cladding is present, the screener shouldexamine closely the fasteners used. If the headsof sheet metal screws can be seen in horizontalrows, the building is most likely a light metalstructure (Figure E-18).
2. Because the typical structural system consists of moment frames in the transverse direction andframes braced with diagonal steel rods in the lon-gitudinal direction, light metal buildings oftenhave low-pitched roofs without parapets or over-hangs (Figure E-19). Most of these buildings are prefabricated, so the buildings tend to be rectan-gular in plan, without many corners.
3. These buildings generally have only a few win-dows, as it is difficult to detail a window in thesheet metal system.
4. The screener should look for signs of a metal building, and should knock on the siding to see if it sounds hollow. Door openings should beinspected for exposed steel members. If a gap, or light, can be seen where the siding meets theground, it is certainly light metal or wood frame.For the best indication, an interior inspection willconfirm the structural skeleton, because most of these buildings do not have interior finishes.
E.4.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Because these building are low-rise, lightweight, andconstructed of steel members, they usually performrelatively well in earthquakes. Collapses do not usu-ally occur. Some typical problems are listed below:
1. Insufficient capacity of tension braces can lead totheir elongation or failure, and, in turn, buildingdamage.
2. Inadequate connection to the foundation canallow the building columns to slide.
3. Loss of the cladding can occur.
E.5 Steel Frame with Concrete Shear Wall (S4)
E.5.1 Characteristics
The construction of this structural type (Figure E-20)is similar to that of the steel moment-resisting framein that a matrix of steel columns and girders is dis-tributed throughout the structure. The joints, how-ever, are not designed for moment resistance, and thelateral forces are resisted by concrete shear walls.
It is often difficult to differentiate visually between a steel frame with concrete shear walls andone without, because interior shear walls will often be covered by interior finishes and will look likeinterior nonstructural partitions. For the purposes of
an RVS, unless the shear wall is identifiable from theexterior (i.e., a raw concrete finish was part of thearchitectural aesthetic of the building, and was leftexposed), this building cannot be identified accu-rately. Figure E-21shows a structure with such anexposed shear wall. Figure E-22 is a close-up of shear wall damage.
Figure E-18 Connection of metal siding to light metalframe with rows of screws (encircled).
Figure E-19 Prefabricated metal building (S3, light metal building).
108 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
E.5.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
The shear walls can be part of the elevator and ser-
vice core, or part of the exterior or interior walls.This type of structure performs as well in earth-quakes as other steel buildings. Some typical types of damage, other than nonstructural damage and pound-ing, are:
1. Shear cracking and distress can occur aroundopenings in concrete shear walls.
2. Wall construction joints can be weak planes,
resulting in wall shear failure at stresses belowexpected capacity.
3. Insufficient chord steel lap lengths can lead towall bending failures.
E.6 Steel Frame with UnreinforcedMasonry Infill (S5)
E.6.1 Characteristics
This construction type (Figures E-23 and E-24) con-sists of a steel structural frame and walls “infilled”with unreinforced masonry (URM). In older build-
ings, the floor diaphragms are often wood. Later buildings have reinforced concrete floors. Because of the masonry infill, the structure tends to be stiff.Because the steel frame in an older building is cov-ered by unreinforced masonry for fire protection, it iseasy to confuse this type of building with URM bear-ing-wall structures. Further, because the steel col-umns are relatively thin, they may be hidden in walls.An apparently solid masonry wall may enclose aseries of steel columns and girders. These infill wallsare usually two or three wythes thick. Therefore,header bricks will sometimes be present and thusmislead the screener into thinking the building is a
URM bearing-wall structure, rather than infill. Oftenin these structures the infill and veneer masonry isexposed. Otherwise, masonry may be obscured bycladding in buildings, especially those that haveundergone renovation.
When a masonry building is encountered, thescreener should first attempt to determine if themasonry is reinforced, by checking the date of con-struction, although this is only a rough guide. A
Figure E-20 Drawing of steel frame with interiorconcrete shear-walls.
Figure E-21 Concrete shear wall on building exterior.
Figure E-22 Close-up of exterior shear wall damageduring a major earthquake.
110 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
described below, typical damage results from a vari-ety of factors.
1. Infill walls tend to buckle and fall out-of-planewhen subjected to strong lateral forces. Becauseinfill walls are non-load-bearing, they tend to bethin (around 9") and cannot rely on the additionalshear strength that accompanies vertical com- pressive loads.
2. Veneer masonry around columns or beams isusually poorly anchored to the structural mem- bers and can disengage and fall.
3. Interior infill partitions and other nonstructuralelements can be severely damaged and collapse.
4. If stories above the first are infilled, but the firstis not (a soft story), the difference in stiffnesscreates a large demand at the ground floor col-umns, causing structural damage.
5. When the earthquake forces are sufficiently high,the steel frame itself can fail locally. Connections between members are usually not designed for high lateral loads (except in tall buildings) andthis can lead to damage of these connections.Complete collapse has seldom occurred, but can-not be ruled out.
E.6.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Rehabilitation techniques for this structural type havefocused on the expected damage. By far the most sig-nificant problem, and that which is addressed in mostrehabilitation schemes, is failure of the infill wall outof its plane. This failure presents a significant lifesafety hazard to individuals on the exterior of the building, especially those who manage to exit the building during the earthquake. To remedy this prob-lem, anchorage connections are developed to tie themasonry infill to the floors and roof of the structure.
Another significant problem is the inherent lack of shear strength throughout the building. Some of the rehabilitation techniques employed include thefollowing.
1. Gunite (with pneumatically placed concrete) theinterior faces of the masonry wall, creating rein-forced concrete shear elements.
2. Rehabilitate the steel frames by providing cross
bracing or by fully strengthening the connectionsto create moment frames. In this latter case, theframes are still not sufficient to resist all the lat-eral forces, and reliance on the infill walls is nec-essary to provide adequate strength.
For concrete moment frames the rehabilitation tech-niques have been to provide ductile detailing. This isusually done by removing the outside cover of con-crete (a couple of inches) exposing the reinforcingties. Additional ties are added with their ends embed-ded into the core of the column. The exterior con-crete is then replaced. This process results in a detailthat provides a reasonable amount of ductility but notas much as there would have been had the ductility been provided in the original design.
E.7 Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame(C1)
E.7.1 Characteristics
Concrete moment-resisting frame construction con-sists of concrete beams and columns that resist bothlateral and vertical loads (see Figure E-25). A funda-mental factor in the seismic performance of concretemoment-resisting frames is the presence or absence
of ductile detailing. Hence, several construction sub-types fall under this category:
a. non-ductile reinforced-concrete frames withunreinforced infill walls,
b. non-ductile reinforced-concrete frames withreinforced infill walls,
c. non-ductile reinforced-concrete frames, and
Figure E-24 Example of steel frame with URM infillwalls (S5).
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 111
d. ductile reinforced-concrete frames.
Ductile detailing refers to the presence of specialsteel reinforcing within concrete beams and columns.The special reinforcement provides confinement of the concrete, permitting good performance in themembers beyond the elastic capacity, primarily in bending. Due to this confinement, disintegration of
the concrete is delayed, and the concrete retains itsstrength for more cycles of loading (i.e., the ductilityis increased). See Figure E-26 for a dramatic exam- ple of ductility in concrete.
Ductile detailing (Figure E-27) has been prac-ticed in high-seismicity areas since 1967, when duc-tility requirements were first introduced into theUniform Building Code (the adoption and enforce-ment of ductility requirements in a given jurisdiction
Figure E-25 Drawing of concrete moment-resisting frame building.
Figure E-26 Extreme example of ductility in concrete,1994 Northridge earthquake.
112 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
may be later, however). Prior to that time, nonductileor ordinary concrete moment-resisting frames werethe norm (and still are, for moderate seismic areas).In high-seismicity areas additional tie reinforcingwas required following the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake and appeared in the Uniform Building Code in1976.
In many low-seismicity areas of the UnitedStates, non-ductile concrete frames of type (a), (b),and (c) continue to be built. This group includes largemultistory commercial, institutional, and residential buildings constructed using flat slab frames, waffleslab frames, and the standard beam-and-columnframes. These structures generally are more massivethan steel-frame buildings, are under-reinforced (i.e.,have insufficient reinforcing steel embedded in theconcrete) and display low ductility.
This building type is difficult to differentiatefrom steel moment-resisting frames unless the struc-tural concrete has been left relatively exposed (seeFigure E-28). Although a steel frame may be encasedin concrete and appear to be a concrete frame, this isseldom the case for modern buildings (post 1940s).For the purpose of the RVS procedures, it can beassumed that all exposed concrete frames are con-crete and not steel frames.
E.7.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Under high amplitude cyclic loading, lack of con-finement will result in rapid disintegration of non-ductile concrete members, with ensuing brittle failureand possible building collapse (see Figure E-29).
Causes and types of damage include:
1. Excessive tie spacing in columns can lead to alack of concrete confinement and shear failure.
2. Placement of inadequate rebar splices all at thesame location in a column can lead to columnfailure.
3. Insufficient shear strength in columns can lead toshear failure prior to the full development of
moment hinge capacity.
4. Insufficient shear tie anchorage can prevent thecolumn from developing its full shear capacity.
5. Lack of continuous beam reinforcement canresult in unexpected hinge formation during loadreversal.
Figure E-27 Example of ductile reinforced concretecolumn, 1994 Northridge earthquake;horizontal ties would need to be closerfor greater demands. Figure E-28 Concrete moment-resisting frame
building (C1) with exposed concrete,deep beams, wide columns (and witharchitectural window framing).
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 113
6. Inadequate reinforcing of beam-column joints or the positioning of beam bar splices at columnscan lead to failures.
7. The relatively low stiffness of the frame can lead
to substantial nonstructural damage.
8. Pounding damage with adjacent buildings canoccur.
E.7.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Rehabilitation techniques for reinforced concreteframe buildings depend on the extent to which theframe meets ductility requirements. The costs asso-ciated with the upgrading an existing, conventional beam-column framing system to meet the minimumstandards for ductility are high and this approach isusually not cost-effective. The most practical and
cost-effective solution is to add a system of shear walls or braced frames to provide the required seis-mic resistance (ATC, 1992).
E.8 Concrete Shear Wall (C2)
E.8.1 Characteristics
This category consists of buildings with a perim-eter concrete bearing-wall structural system or frame
structures with shear walls (Figure E-30). The struc-ture, including the usual concrete floor diaphragms,is typically cast in place. Before the 1940s, bearing-wall systems were used in schools, churches, andindustrial buildings. Concrete shear-wall buildingsconstructed since the early 1950s are institutional,commercial, and residential buildings, ranging fromone to more than thirty stories. Frame buildings withshear walls tend to be commercial and industrial. Acommon example of the latter type is a warehousewith interior frames and perimeter concrete walls.Residential buildings of this type are often mid-risetowers. The shear walls in these newer buildings can be located along the perimeter, as interior partitions,or around the service core.
Frame structures with interior shear walls are dif-ficult to identify positively. Where the building is
clearly a box-like bearing-wall structure it is proba- bly a shear-wall structure. Concrete shear wall build-ings are usually cast in place. The screener shouldlook for signs of cast-in-place concrete. In concrete bearing-wall structures, the wall thickness rangesfrom 6 to 10 inches and is thin in comparison to thatof masonry bearing-wall structures.
Figure E-29 Locations of failures at beam-to-column joints in nonductile frames, 1994 Northridge earthquake.
114 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
E.8.2 Typical Types of Earthquake Damage
This building type generally performs better thanconcrete frame buildings. The buildings are heavycompared with steel frame buildings, but they are
also stiff due to the presence of the shear walls. Dam-age commonly observed in taller buildings is caused by vertical discontinuities, pounding, and irregular configuration. Other damage specific to this buildingtype includes the following.
1. During large seismic events, shear cracking anddistress can occur around openings in concreteshear walls and in spandrel beams and link beams between shear walls (See Figures E-31and E-32.)
2. Shear failure can occur at wall construction joints usually at a load level below the expected
capacity.
3. Bending failures can result from insufficient ver-tical chord steel and insufficient lap lengths atthe ends of the walls.
E.8.3 Common Rehabilitation
Reinforced concrete shear-wall buildings can berehabilitated in a variety of ways. Techniques
include: (1) reinforcing existing walls in shear byapplying a layer of shotcrete or poured concrete; (2)where feasible, filling existing window or door open-ings with concrete to add shear strength and elimi-
nate critical bending stresses at the edge of openings;and (3) reinforcing narrow overstressed shear panelsin in-plane bending by adding reinforced boundaryelements (ATC, 1992).
E.9 Concrete Frame with UnreinforcedMasonry Infill (C3)
E.9.1 Characteristics
These buildings (Figures E-33 and E-34) have been,and continue to be, built in regions where unrein-forced masonry (URM) has not been eliminated bycode. These buildings were generally built before
1940 in high-seismicity regions and may continue to be built in other regions.
The first step in identification is to determine if the structure is old enough to contain URM. In con-trast to steel frames with URM infill, concrete frameswith URM infill usually show clear evidence of theconcrete frames. This is particularly true for indus-trial buildings and can usually be observed at the sideor rear of commercial buildings. The concrete col-
Figure E-30 Drawing of concrete shear-wall building.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 115
umns and beams are relatively large and are usuallynot covered by masonry but left exposed.
A case in which URM infill cannot be readilyidentified is the commercial building with large win-dows on all sides; these buildings may have interior URM partitions. Another difficult case occurs whenthe exterior walls are covered by decorative tile or
Figure E-34 Blow-up (lower photo) of distant view of C3 building (upper photo) showing concrete frame with URM infill (left wall),and face brick (right wall).
116 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
stone veneer. The infill material can be URM or athin concrete infill.
E.9.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
The hazards of these buildings, which in the westernUnited States are often older, are similar to and per-haps more severe than those of the newer concreteframes. Where URM infill is present, a falling hazardexists. The failure mechanisms of URM infill in aconcrete frame are generally the same as URM infillin a steel frame.
E.9.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry infill in aconcrete frame is identical to that of the URM infillin a steel frame. See Section E.6.3. Anchorage of thewall panels for out-of-plane forces is the key compo-nent, followed by providing sufficient shear strengthin the building.
E.10 Tilt-up Structures (PC1)
E.10.1 Characteristics
In traditional tilt-up buildings (Figures E-35 throughE-37), concrete wall panels are cast on the ground
Figure E-35 Drawing of tilt-up construction typical of the western United States. Tilt-up construction in the easternUnited States may incorporate a steel frame.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 117
and then tilted upward into their final positions. Morerecently, wall panels are fabricated off-site and
trucked to the site.Tilt-up buildings are an inexpensive form of light
industrial and commercial construction and have become increasingly popular in the western and cen-tral United States since the 1940s. They are typicallyone and sometimes two stories high and basicallyhave a simple rectangular plan. The walls are the lat-eral-force-resisting system. The roof can be a ply-wood diaphragm carried on wood purlins and glue-laminated (glulam) wood beams or a light steel deck and joist system, supported in the interior of the building on steel pipe columns. The wall panels areattached to concrete cast-in-place pilasters or to steelcolumns, or the joint is simply closed with a later concrete pour. These joints are typically spaced about20 feet apart.
The major defect in existing tilt-ups is a lack of positive anchorage between wall and diaphragm,which has been corrected since about 1973 in thewestern United States.
In the western United States, it can be assumedthat all one-story concrete industrial warehouses with
flat roofs built after 1950 are tilt-ups unless supple-mentary information indicates otherwise.
E.10.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Before 1973 in the western United States, many tilt-up buildings did not have sufficiently strong connec-tions or anchors between the walls and the roof andfloor diaphragms. The anchorage typically was noth-ing more than the nailing of the plywood roof sheath-ing to the wood ledgers supporting the framing.
During an earthquake, the weak anchorage brokethe ledgers, resulting in the panels falling and thesupported framing to collapse. When mechanicalanchors were used they pulled out of the walls or split the wood members to which they were attached,causing the floors or roofs to collapse. SeeFigures E-38 and E-39. The connections between theconcrete panels are also vulnerable to failure. With-out these connections, the building loses much of itslateral-force-resisting capacity. For these reasons,
many tilt-up buildings were damaged in the 1971 San
Figure E-36 Tilt-up industrial building, 1970s.
Figure E-37 Tilt-up industrial building, mid- to late1980s.
Figure E-38 Tilt-up construction anchorage failure.
Figure E-39 Result of failure of the roof beamanchorage to the wall in tilt-up building.
118 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
Fernando, California, earthquake. Since 1973, tilt-up construction practices have changed in Californiaand other high-seismicity regions, requiring positivewall-diaphragm connection. (Such requirements maynot have yet been made in other regions of the coun-try.) However, a large number of these older, pre-1970s-vintage tilt-up buildings still exist and havenot been rehabilitated to correct this wall-anchor
defect. Damage to these buildings was observedagain in the 1987 Whittier, California, earthquake,1989 Loma Prieta, California earthquake, and the1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. These buildings are a prime source of seismic hazard.
In areas of low or moderate seismicity, inade-quate wall anchor details continue to be used. Severeground shaking in such an area may produce major damage in tilt-up buildings.
E.10.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
The rehabilitation of tilt-up buildings is relatively
easy and inexpensive. The most common form of rehabilitation is to provide a positive anchorage con-nection at the roof and wall intersection. This is usu-ally done by using pre-fabricated metal hardwareattached to the framing member and to a bolt that isinstalled through the wall. On the outside of the walla large washer plate is used. See Figure E-40 for examples of new anchors.
Accompanying the anchorage rehabilitation isthe addition of ties across the building to develop theanchorage forces from the wall panels fully into thediaphragm. This is accomplished by interconnectingframing members from one side of the building to the
other, and then increasing the connections of the dia- phragm (usually wood) to develop the additionalforces.
E.11 Precast Concrete Frame (PC2)
E.11.1 Characteristics
Precast concrete frame construction, first developedin the 1930s, was not widely used until the 1960s.The precast frame (Figure E-41) is essentially a postand beam system in concrete where columns, beamsand slabs are prefabricated and assembled on site.
Various types of members are used. Vertical-load-carrying elements may be Ts, cross shapes, or archesand are often more than one story in height. Beamsare often Ts and double Ts, or rectangular sections.Prestressing of the members, including pretensioningand post-tensioning, is often employed. The identifi-cation of this structure type cannot rely solely onconstruction date, although most precast concrete
frame structures were constructed after 1960. Sometypical characteristics are the following.
1. Precast concrete, in general, is of a higher quality
and precision compared to cast-in-place con-crete. It is also available in a greater range of tex-tures and finishes. Many newer concrete andsteel buildings have precast concrete panels andcolumn covers as an exterior finish (SeeFigure E-42). Thus, the presence of precast con-crete does not necessarily mean that it is a pre-cast concrete frame.
2. Precast concrete frames are, in essence, post and beam construction in concrete. Therefore, whena concrete structure displays the features of a post-and-beam system, it is most likely that it is a
precast concrete frame. It is usually not economi-cal for a conventional cast-in-place concreteframe to look like a post-and-beam system. Fea-tures of a precast concrete post-and-beam systeminclude:
a. exposed ends of beams and girders that project beyond their supports or project away from the building surface,
Figure E-40 Newly installed anchorage of roof beamto wall in tilt-up building.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 119
b. the absence of small joists, and
c. beams sitting on top of girders rather than meet-ing at a monolithic joint (see Figure E-43)
The presence of precast structural components is usu-
ally a good indication of this system, although thesecomponents are also used in mixed construction. Pre-cast structural components come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The most common types are some-times difficult to detect from the street. Less common but more obvious examples include the following.
a. Ts or double Ts—These are deep beams with thinwebs and flanges and with large span capacities.
(Figure E-44 shows one end of a double-T beamas it is lowered onto its seat.)
b. Cross or T-shaped units of partial columns and beams — These are structural units for construct-ing moment-resisting frames. They are usually
joined together by field welding of steel connec-tors cast into the concrete. Joints should beclearly visible at the mid-span of the beams or the mid-height of the columns. See Figure E-45.
c. Precast arches—Precast arches and pedestals are popular in the architecture of these buildings.
d. Column—When a column displays a precast fin-ish without an indication that it has a cover (i.e.,
Figure E-41 Drawing of precast concrete frame building.
120 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
no vertical seam can be found), the column islikely to be a precast structural column.
It is possible that a precast concrete frame may notshow any of the above features, however.
E.11.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
The earthquake performance of this structural typevaries widely and is sometimes poor. This type of building can perform well if the detailing used toconnect the structural elements have sufficientstrength and ductility (toughness). Because structuresof this type often employ cast-in-place concrete or reinforced masonry (brick or block) shear walls for lateral-load resistance, they experience the sametypes of damage as other shear-wall building types.
Some of the problem areas specific to precast framesare listed below.
1. Poorly designed connections between prefabri-cated elements can fail.
2. Accumulated stresses can result due to shrinkageand creep and due to stresses incurred in trans- portation.
3. Loss of vertical support can occur due to inade-quate bearing area and insufficient connection between floor elements and columns.
4. Corrosion of the metal connectors between pre-
fabricated elements can occur.
E.11.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Seismic rehabilitation techniques for precast concreteframe buildings are varied, depending on the ele-ments being strengthened. Inadequate shear capacityof floor diaphragms can be addressed by adding rein-forced concrete topping to an untopped system when
Figure E-42 Typical precast column cover on a steelor concrete moment frame.
Figure E-43 Exposed precast double-T sections andoverlapping beams are indicative of
precast frames.
Figure E-44 Example of precast double-T sectionduring installation.
Figure E-45 Precast structural cross; installation jointsare at sections where bending isminimum during high seismic demand.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 121
possible, or adding new shear walls to reduce theseismic shear forces in the diaphragm. Corbels withinadequate vertical shear or bending strength can bestrengthened by adding epoxied horizontal shear dowels through the corbel and into the column.Alternatively, vertical shear capacity can beincreased by adding a structural steel bolster under the corbel, bolted to the column, or a new steel col-
umn or reinforced concrete column can be added(ATC, 1992).
E.12 Reinforced Masonry (RM1 andRM2)
E.12.1 Characteristics
Reinforced masonry buildings are mostly low-risestructures with perimeter bearing walls, often withwood diaphragms (RM1 buildings) although precastconcrete is sometimes used (RM2 buildings). Floor and roof assemblies usually consist of timber joists
and beams, glued-laminated beams, or light steel joists. The bearing walls consist of grouted and rein-forced hollow or solid masonry units. Interior sup- ports, if any, are often wood or steel columns, woodstud frames, or masonry walls. Occupancy varies
from small commercial buildings to residential and industrial buildings. Generally, they are less than fivestories in height although many taller masonry build-ings exist. Reinforced masonry structures are usually basically rectangular structures (See Figure E-46).
To identify reinforced masonry, one must deter-mine separately if the building is masonry and if it isreinforced. To obtain information on how to recog-nize a masonry structure, see Appendix D, whichdescribes the characteristics of construction materi-als. The best way of assessing the reinforcement con-dition is to compare the date of construction with thedate of code requirement for the reinforcement of masonry in the local jurisdiction.
The screener also needs to determine if the build-ing is veneered with masonry or is a masonry build-ing. Wood siding is seldom applied over masonry. If the front facade appears to be reinforced masonrywhereas the side has wood siding, it is probably awood frame that has undergone facade renovation.The back of the building should be checked for signsof the original construction type.
If it can be determined that the bearing walls areconstructed of concrete blocks, they may be rein-forced. Load-bearing structures using these blocksare probably reinforced if the local code required it.Concrete blocks come in a variety of sizes and tex-tures. The most common size is 8 inches wide by 16inches long by 8 inches high. Their presence is obvi-ous if the concrete blocks are left as the finish sur-face.
E.12.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Reinforced masonry buildings can perform well in
moderate earthquakes if they are adequately rein-forced and grouted, and if sufficient diaphragmanchorage exists. A major problem is control of theworkmanship during construction. Poor construc-tion practice can result in ungrouted and unreinforcedwalls. Even where construction practice is adequate,insufficient reinforcement in the design can beresponsible for heavy damage of the walls. The lack of positive connection of the floor and roof dia- phragms to the wall is also a problem.
E.12.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Techniques for seismic rehabilitation of reinforced
masonry bearing wall buildings are varied, depend-ing on the element being rehabilitated. Techniquesfor rehabilitating masonry walls include: (1) applyinga layer of concrete or shotcrete to the existing walls;(2) adding vertical reinforcing and grouting intoungrouted block walls; and (3) filling in large or crit-ical openings with reinforced concrete or masonrydowelled to the surrounding wall. Wood or steeldeck diaphragms in RM1 buildings can be rehabili-tated by adding an additional layer of plywood tostrengthen and stiffen an existing wood diaphragm, by shear welding between sections of an existing
steel deck or adding flat sheet steel reinforcement, or by adding additional vertical elements (for example,shear walls or braced frames) to decrease diaphragmspans and stresses. Precast floor diaphragms in RM2 buildings can be strengthen by adding a layer of con-crete topping reinforced with mesh (if the supportingstructure has the capacity to carry the additional ver-tical dead load), or by adding new shear walls toreduce the diaphragm span (ATC, 1992).
122 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
E.13 Unreinforced Masonry (URM)
E.13.1 Characteristics
Most unreinforced masonry (URM) bearing-wallstructures in the western United States (Figures E-47through E-51) were built before 1934, although thisconstruction type was permitted in some jurisdictions
having moderate or high seismicity until the late1940s or early 1950s (in some jurisdictions URMmay still be a common type of construction, eventoday). These buildings usually range from one to sixstories in height and function as commercial, residen-tial, or industrial buildings. The construction variesaccording to the type of use, although wood floor androof diaphragms are common. Smaller commercialand residential buildings usually have light wood
floor joists and roof joists supported on the typical perimeter URM wall and interior, wood, load-bear-ing partitions. Larger buildings, such as industrialwarehouses, have heavier floors and interior col-umns, usually of wood. The bearing walls of theseindustrial buildings tend to be thick, often as much as24 inches or more at the base. Wall thickness of resi-
dential, commercial, and office buildings range from9 inches at upper floors to 18 inches a lower floors.
The first step in identifying buildings of this typeis to determine if the structure has bearing walls. Sec-ond, the screener should determine the approximateage of the building. Some indications of unreinforcedmasonry are listed below.
1. Weak mortar was used to bond the masonry unitstogether in much of the early unreinforced
Figure E-47 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing-wall building, 2-story.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 123
masonry construction in the United States. As the poor earthquake performance of this mortar type
became known in the 1930s, and as cement mor-tar became available, this weaker mortar was notused and thus is not found in more recentmasonry buildings. If this soft mortar is present,it is probably URM. Soft mortar can be scratchedwith a hard instrument such as a penknife, screw-driver, or a coin. This scratch testing, if permit-ted, should be done in a wall area where theoriginal structural material is exposed, such as
the sides or back of a building. Newer masonrymay be used in renovations and it may look very
much like the old. Older mortar joints can also berepointed (i.e., regular maintenance of themasonry mortar), or repaired with newer mortar during renovation. The original construction mayalso have used a high-quality mortar. Thus, evenif the existence of soft mortar cannot be detected,it may still be URM.
2. An architectural characteristic of older brick bearing-wall structures is the arch and flat arch
Figure E-48 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing-wall building, 4-story.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 125
window heads (see Figure E-52). These arrange-ments of masonry units function as a header tocarry the load above the opening to either side.Although masonry-veneered wood-frame struc-tures may have these features, they are muchmore widely used in URM bearing-wall struc-tures, as they were the most economical methodof spanning over a window opening at the timeof construction. Other methods of spanning arealso used, including steel and stone lintels, butthese methods are generally more costly and usu-
ally employed in the front facade only.3. Some structures of this type will have anchor
plates visible at the floor and roof lines, approxi-mately 6-10 feet on center around the perimeter of the building. Anchor plates are usually squareor diamond-shaped steel plates approximately 6inches by 6 inches, with a bolt and nut at the cen-ter. Their presence indicates anchor ties have been placed to tie the walls to the floors and roof.
These are either from the original construction or from rehabilitation under local ordinances.Unless the anchors are 6 feet on center or less,they are not considered effective in earthquakes.If they are closely spaced, and appear to berecently installed, it indicates that the buildinghas been rehabilitated. In either case, when theseanchors are present all around the building, theoriginal construction is URM bearing wall.
4. When a building has many exterior solid wallsconstructed from hollow clay tile, and no col-
umns of another material can be detected, it is probably not a URM bearing wall but probably awood or metal frame structure with URM infill.
5. One way to distinguish a reinforced masonry building from an unreinforced masonry buildingis to examine the brick pattern closely. Rein-forced masonry usually does not show header bricks in the wall surface.
Figure E-52 Drawings of typical window head features in URM bearing-wall buildings.
126 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types FEMA 154
If a building does not display the above features, or if the exterior is covered by other finish material, the building may still be URM.
E.13.2 Typical Earthquake Damage
Unreinforced masonry structures are recognized asthe most hazardous structural type. They have beenobserved to fail in many modes during past earth-quakes. Typical problems include the following.
1. Insufficient Anchorage—Because the walls, par-apets, and cornices are not positively anchored tothe floors, they tend to fall out. The collapse of bearing walls can lead to major building col-lapses. Some of these buildings have anchors as a part of the original construction or as a rehabili-tation. These older anchors exhibit questionable performance. (See Figure E-53 for parapet dam-age.)
2. Excessive Diaphragm Deflection—Becausemost of the floor diaphragms are constructed of finished wood flooring placed over ¾”-thick wood sheathing, they tend to be stiff comparedwith other types of wood diaphragms. This stiff-ness results in rotations about a vertical axis,
accompanying translations in the direction of theopen front walls of buildings, due to a lack of in- plane stiffness in these open fronts. Becausethere is little resistance in the masonry walls for out-of-plane loading, the walls allow large dia- phragm displacements and cause the failure of the walls out of their plane. Large drifts occur-ring at the roof line can cause a masonry wall to
overturn and collapse under its own weight.
3. Low Shear Resistance—The mortar used in theseolder buildings was often made of lime and sand,with little or no cement, and had very little shear strength. The bearing walls will be heavily dam-aged and collapse under large loads. (SeeFigure E-54)
4. Slender Walls —Some of these buildings havetall story heights and thin walls. This condition,especially in non-load-bearing walls, will resultin buckling out-of-plane under severe lateralload. Failure of a non-load-bearing wall repre-sents a falling hazard, whereas the collapse of aload-bearing wall will lead to partial or total col-lapse of the structure.
E.13.3 Common Rehabilitation Techniques
Over the last 10 years or more, jurisdictions in Cali-fornia have required that unreinforced masonry bear-
ing-wall buildings be rehabilitated or demolished. Tominimize the economical impact on owners of hav-ing to rehabilitate their buildings, many jurisdictionsimplemented phased programs such that the criticalitems were dealt with first. The following are the keyelements included in a typical rehabilitation program.
1. Roof and floor diaphragms are connected to thewalls for both anchorage forces (out of the planeof the wall) and shear forces (in the plane of the
Figure E-53 Parapet failure leaving an uneven roof line, due to inadequate anchorage, 1989Loma Prieta earthquake.
Figure E-54 Damaged URM building,1992 Big Bear earthquake.
FEMA 154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of RVS Building Types 127
wall). Anchorage connections are placed at 6 feetspacing or less, depending on the force require-ments. Shear connections are usually placed ataround 2 feet center to center. Anchors consist of bolts installed through the wall, with 6-inch-square washer plates, and connected to hardwareattached to the wood framing. Shear connectionsusually are bolts embedded in the masonry walls
in oversized holes filled with either a non-shrink grout or an epoxy adhesive. See Figure E-55.
2. In cases when the height to thickness ratio of thewalls exceeds the limits of stability, rehabilita-tion consists of reducing the spans of the wall toa level that their thickness can support. Parapetrehabilitation consists of reducing the parapet towhat is required for fire safety and then bracingfrom the top to the roof.
3. If the building has an open storefront in the firststory, resulting in a soft story, part of the store-front is enclosed with new masonry or a steelframe is provided there, with new foundations.
4. Walls are rehabilitated by either closing openingswith reinforced masonry or with reinforcedgunite.
Figure E-55 Upper: Two existing anchors above threenew wall anchors at floor line using decorative washer plates. Lower:Rehabilitation techniques include closely
FEMA 154 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them 129
Appendix F
Earthquakes and How BuildingsResist Them
F.1 The Nature of Earthquakes
In a global sense, earthquakes result from motion between plates comprising the earth’s crust (seeFigure F-1). These plates are driven by the convec-tive motion of the material in the earth’s mantle between the core and the crust, which in turn isdriven by heat generated at the earth’s core. Just as ina heated pot of water, heat from the earth’s corecauses material to rise to the earth’s surface. Forces
between the rising material and the earth’s crustal plates cause the plates to move. The resulting relativemotions of the plates are associated with the genera-tion of earthquakes. Where the plates spread apart,molten material fills the void. An example is theridge on the ocean floor, at the middle of the Atlantic
Ocean. This material quickly cools and, over millionsof years, is driven by newer, viscous, fluid materialacross the ocean floor.
These large pieces of the earth’s surface, termedtectonic plates, move very slowly and irregularly.Forces build up for decades, centuries, or millennia atthe interfaces (or faults) between plates, until a largereleasing movement suddenly occurs. This sudden,violent motion produces the nearby shaking that isfelt as an earthquake. Strong shaking produces strong
horizontal forces on structures, which can causedirect damage to buildings, bridges, and other man-made structures as well as triggering fires, landslides,road damage, tidal waves (tsunamis) and other dam-aging phenomena.
Figure F-1 The separate tectonic plates comprising the earth’s crust superimposed on a map of the world.
130 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA 154
A fault is like a “tear” in the earth’s crust and itsfault surface may be from one to over one hundredmiles deep. In some cases, faults are the physicalexpression of the boundary between adjacent tectonic plates and thus are hundreds of miles long. In addi-tion, there are shorter faults, parallel to, or branchingout from, a main fault zone. Generally, the longer afault, the larger magnitude earthquake it can gener-
ate. Beyond the main tectonic plates, there are manysmaller sub-plates, “platelets” and simple blocks of crust which can move or shift due to the “jostling” of their neighbors and the major plates. The knownexistence of these many sub-plates implies thatsmaller but still damaging earthquakes are possiblealmost anywhere.
With the present understanding of the earthquakegenerating mechanism, the times, sizes and locationsof earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted. Gener-ally, earthquakes will be concentrated in the vicinityof faults, and certain faults are more likely than oth-ers to produce a large event, but the earthquake gen-erating process is not understood well enough to predict the exact time of earthquake occurrence.Therefore, communities must be prepared for anearthquake to occur at any time.
Four major factors can affect the severity of ground shaking and thus potential damage at a site.These are the magnitude of the earthquake, the typeof earthquake, the distance from the source of theearthquake to the site, and the hardness or softness of the rock or soil at the site. Larger earthquakes willshake longer and harder, and thus cause more dam-age. Experience has shown that the ground motion
can be felt for several seconds to a minute or longer.In preparing for earthquakes, both horizontal (side toside) and vertical shaking must be considered.
There are many ways to describe the size andseverity of an earthquake and associated groundshaking. Perhaps the most familiar are earthquakemagnitude and Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI,often simply termed “intensity”). Earthquake magni-tude is technically known as the Richter magnitude, anumerical description of the maximum amplitude of ground movement measured by a seismograph(adjusted to a standard setting). On the Richter scale,the largest recorded earthquakes have had magni-
tudes of about 8.5. It is a logarithmic scale, and a unitincrease in magnitude corresponds to a ten-foldincrease in the adjusted ground displacement ampli-tude, and to approximately a thirty-fold increase intotal potential strain energy released by the earth-quake.
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) is a subjec-tive scale defining the level of shaking at specificsites on a scale of I to XII. (MMI is expressed in
Roman numerals, to connote its approximate nature.)For example, slight shaking that causes few instancesof fallen plaster or cracks in chimneys constitutesMMI VI. It is difficult to find a reliable precise rela-tionship between magnitude, which is a descriptionof the earthquake’s total energy level, and intensity,which is a subjective description of the level of shak-ing of the earthquake at specific sites, because shak-
ing intensity can vary with earthquake magnitude,soil type, and distance from the event.
The following analogy may be worth remember-ing: earthquake magnitude and intensity are similar to a light bulb and the light it emits. A particular light bulb has only one energy level, or wattage (e.g., 100watts, analogous to an earthquake’s magnitude). Near the light bulb, the light intensity is very bright (per-haps 100 foot-candles, analogous to MMI IX), whilefarther away the intensity decreases (e.g., 10 foot-candles, MMI V). A particular earthquake has onlyone magnitude value, whereas it has intensity valuesthat differ throughout the surrounding land.
MMI is a subjective measure of seismic intensityat a site, and cannot be measured using a scientificinstrument. Rather, MMI is estimated by scientistsand engineers based on observations, such as thedegree of disturbance to the ground, the degree of damage to typical buildings and the behavior of peo- ple. A more objective measure of seismic shaking ata site, which can be measured by instruments, is asimple structure’s acceleration in response to theground motion. In this Handbook , the level of groundshaking is described by the spectral response acceler-ation.
F.2 Seismicity of the United States
Maps showing the locations of earthquake epicentersover a specified time period are often used to charac-terize the seismicity of given regions. Figures F-2,F-3, and F-4 show the locations of earthquake epi-centers4 in the conterminous United States, Alaska,and Hawaii, respectively, recorded during the time period, 1977-1997. It is evident from Figures F-2through F-4 that some parts of the country have expe-rienced more earthquakes than others. The boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates lies along the west coast of the United Statesand south of Alaska. The San Andreas fault in Cali-fornia and the Aleutian Trench off the coast of Alaska are part of this boundary. These active seis-mic zones have generated earthquakes with Richter
4An epicenter is defined as the point on the earth’s
FEMA 154 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them 131
magnitudes greater than 8. There are many other smaller fault zones throughout the western UnitedStates that are also participating intermittently inreleasing the stresses and strains that are built up asthe tectonic plates try to move past one another.
Because earthquakes always occur along faults, theseismic hazard will be greater for those populationcenters close to active fault zones.
In California the earthquake hazard is so signifi-cant that special study zones have been created by thelegislature, and named Alquist-Priola Special StudyZones. These zones cover the larger known faultsand require special geotechnical studies to be per-formed in order to establish design parameters.
On the east coast of the United States, thesources of earthquakes are less understood. There isno plate boundary and few locations of faults areknown. Therefore, it is difficult to make statements
about where earthquakes are most likely to occur.Several significant historical earthquakes haveoccurred, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, in1886 and New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811 and 1812,indicating that there is potential for large earth-quakes. However, most earthquakes in the easternUnited States are smaller magnitude events. Because
of regional geologic differences, specifically, thehardness of the crustal rock, eastern and central U.S.earthquakes are felt at much greater distances fromtheir sources than those in the western United States,sometimes at distances up to a thousand miles.
F.3 Earthquake Effects
Many different types of damage can occur in build-ings. Damage can be divided into two categories:structural and nonstructural, both of which can behazardous to building occupants. Structural damagemeans degradation of the building’s structural sup- port systems (i.e., vertical- and lateral-force-resistingsystems), such as the building frames and walls. Nonstructural damage refers to any damage that doesnot affect the integrity of the structural support sys-tems. Examples of nonstructural damage are chim-
neys collapsing, windows breaking, or ceilingsfalling. The type of damage to be expected is a com- plex issue that depends on the structural type and ageof the building, its configuration, construction mate-rials, the site conditions, the proximity of the build-ing to neighboring buildings, and the type of non-structural elements.
Figure F-2 Seismicity of the conterminous United States 1977 − 1997 (from the website at http://neic.usgs.gov/ neis/general/seismicity/us.html). This reproduction shows earthquake locations without regard tomagnitude or depth. The San Andreas fault and other plate boundaries are indicated with white lines.
132 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA 154
Figure F-3 Seismicity of Alaska 1977 − 1997. The white line close to most of the earthquakes is the plateboundary, on the ocean floor, between the Pacific and North America plates.
Figure F-4 Seismicity of Hawaii 1977 − 1997. See Figure F-2 caption.
FEMA 154 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them 133
When strong earthquake shaking occurs, a build-ing is thrown mostly from side to side, and also upand down. That is, while the ground is violentlymoving from side to side, taking the building founda-tion with it, the building structure tends to stay atrest, similar to a passenger standing on a bus thataccelerates quickly. Once the building starts moving,it tends to continue in the same direction, but the
ground moves back in the opposite direction (as if the bus driver first accelerated quickly, then suddenly braked). Thus the building gets thrown back andforth by the motion of the ground, with some parts of the building lagging behind the foundation move-ment, and then moving in the opposite direction. Theforce F that an upper floor level or roof level of the building should successfully resist is related to itsmass m and its acceleration a, according to Newton’slaw, F = ma. The heavier the building the more theforce is exerted. Therefore, a tall, heavy, reinforced-concrete building will be subject to more force than alightweight, one-story, wood-frame house, given thesame acceleration.
Damage can be due either to structural members(beams and columns) being overloaded or differen-tial movements between different parts of the struc-ture. If the structure is sufficiently strong to resistthese forces or differential movements, little damagewill result. If the structure cannot resist these forcesor differential movements, structural members will be damaged, and collapse may occur.
Building damage is related to the duration andthe severity of the ground shaking. Larger earth-quakes tend to shake longer and harder and therefore
cause more damage to structures. Earthquakes withRichter magnitudes less than 5 rarely cause signifi-cant damage to buildings, since acceleration levels(except when the site is on the fault) and duration of shaking for these earthquakes are relatively small.
In addition to damage caused by ground shaking,damage can be caused by buildings pounding againstone another, ground failure that causes the degrada-tion of the building foundation, landslides, fires andtidal waves (tsunamis). Most of these “indirect”forms of damage are not addressed in this Handbook .
Generally, the farther from the source of anearthquake, the less severe the motion. The rate at
which motion decreases with distance is a function of the regional geology, inherent characteristics anddetails of the earthquake, and its source location. Theunderlying geology of the site can also have a signif-icant effect on the amplitude of the ground motionthere. Soft, loose soils tend to amplify the groundmotion and in many cases a resonance effect canmake it last longer. In such circumstances, buildingdamage can be accentuated. In the San Francisco
earthquake of 1906, damage was greater in the areaswhere buildings were constructed on loose, man-made fill and less at the tops of the rocky hills. Evenmore dramatic was the 1985 Mexico City earth-quake. This earthquake occurred 250 miles from thecity, but very soft soils beneath the city amplified theground shaking enough to cause weak mid-rise build-ings to collapse (see Figure F-5). Resonance of the
building frequency with the amplified ground shak-ing frequency played a significant role. Sites withrock close to or at the surface will be less likely toamplify motion. The type of motion felt also changeswith distance from the earthquake. Close to thesource the motion tends to be violent rapid shaking,whereas farther away the motion is normally more of a swaying nature. Buildings will respond differentlyto the rapid shaking than to the swaying motion.
Each building has its own vibrational character-istics that depend on building height and structuraltype. Similarly, each earthquake has its own vibra-tional characteristics that depend on the geology of the site, distance from the source, and the type andsite of the earthquake source mechanism. Sometimesa natural resonant frequency of the building and a prominent frequency of the earthquake motion aresimilar and cause a sympathetic response, termedresonance. This causes an increase in the amplitudeof the building’s vibration and consequentlyincreases the potential for damage.
Resonance was a major problem in the 1985Mexico City earthquake, in which the total collapseof many mid-rise buildings (Figure F-5) causedmany fatalities. Tall buildings at large distances from
the earthquake source have a small, but finite, proba- bility of being subjected to ground motions contain-ing frequencies that can cause resonance.
Where taller, more flexible, buildings are suscep-tible to distant earthquakes (swaying motion) shorter
Figure F-5 Mid-rise building collapse, 1985 MexicoCity earthquake.
134 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA 154
and stiffer buildings are more susceptible to nearbyearthquakes (rapid shaking). Figure F-6 shows theeffects on shorter, stiffer structures that are close tothe source. The inset picture shows the interior of thehouse. Accompanying the near field effects is surfacefaulting also shown in Figure F-6.
The level of damage that results from a major earthquake depends on how well a building has beendesigned and constructed. The exact type of damagecannot be predicted because no two buildingsundergo identical motion. However, there are somegeneral trends that have been observed in manyearthquakes.
● Newer buildings generally sustain less damagethan older buildings designed to earlier codes.
● Common problems in wood-frame constructionare the collapse of unreinforced chimneys(Figure F-7) houses sliding off their foundations
(Figure F-8),collapse of cripple walls(Figure F-9), or collapse of post and pier founda-tions (Figure F-10). Although such damage may be costly to repair, it is not usually life threaten-ing.
● The collapse of load bearing walls that supportan entire structure is a common form of damagein unreinforced masonry structures(Figure F-11).
● Similar types of damage have occurred in manyolder tilt-up buildings (Figure F-12).
From a life-safety perspective, vulnerable build-ings need to be clearly identified, and then strength-ened or demolished.
F.4 How Buildings Resist Earthquakes
As described above, buildings experience horizontaldistortion when subjected to earthquake motion.When these distortions get large, the damage can becatastrophic. Therefore, most buildings are designed
Figure F-6 Near-field effects, 1992 Landers earthquake, showing house (white arrow) close to surface faulting (black arrow); the insert shows a house interior.
Figure F-7 Collapsed chimney with damaged roof,1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake.
FEMA 154 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them 135
with lateral-force-resisting systems (or seismic sys-
tems), to resist the effects of earthquake forces. Inmany cases seismic systems make a building stiffer against horizontal forces, and thus minimize theamount of relative lateral movement and conse-quently the damage. Seismic systems are usuallydesigned to resist only forces that result from hori-zontal ground motion, as distinct from verticalground motion.
The combined action of seismic systems alongthe width and length of a building can typically resistearthquake motion from any direction. Seismic sys-tems differ from building to building because thetype of system is controlled to some extent by the
basic layout and structural elements of the building.Basically, seismic systems consist of axial-, shear-and bending-resistant elements.
In wood-frame, stud-wall buildings, plywoodsiding is typically used to prevent excessive lateraldeflection in the plane of the wall. Without the extrastrength provided by the plywood, walls would dis-tort excessively or “rack,” resulting in broken win-dows and stuck doors. In older wood frame houses,
Figure F-8 House that slid off foundation,1994 Northridge earthquake.
Figure F-9 Collapsed cripple stud walls droppedthis house to the ground, 1992 Landersand Big Bear earthquakes.
Figure F-10 This house has settled to the ground dueto collapse of its post and pierfoundation.
Figure F-11 Collapse of unreinforced masonrybearing wall, 1933 Long Beachearthquake.
136 F: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA 154
this resistance to lateral loads is provided by either wood or steel diagonal bracing.
The earthquake-resisting systems in modern steel buildings take many forms. In moment-resisting steelframes, the connections between the beams and thecolumns are designed to resist the rotation of the col-umn relative to the beam. Thus, the beam and thecolumn work together and resist lateral movement
and lateral displacement by bending. Steel framessometimes include diagonal bracing configurations,such as single diagonal braces, cross-bracing and “K- bracing.” In braced frames, horizontal loads areresisted through tension and compression forces inthe braces with resulting changed forces in the beamsand columns. Steel buildings are sometimes con-
structed with moment-resistant frames in one direc-tion and braced frames in the other.
In concrete structures, shear walls are sometimesused to provide lateral resistance in the plane of thewall, in addition to moment-resisting frames. Ideally,these shear walls are continuous reinforced-concretewalls extending from the foundation to the roof of the building. They can be exterior walls or interior
walls. They are interconnected with the rest of theconcrete frame, and thus resist the horizontal motionof one floor relative to another. Shear walls can also be constructed of reinforced masonry, using bricks or concrete blocks.
ASCE, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings — A Pre-standard , prepared by the American Society of CivilEngineers for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, FEMA 310 Report ,Washington D.C.
ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the American Society of CivilEngineers for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, FEMA 356 Report,Washington, D.C.
ATC, 1987, Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings , Applied TechnologyCouncil, ATC-14 Report, Redwood City,California.
ATC, 1989, Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Applied TechnologyCouncil, ATC-20 Report, Redwood City,California.
ATC, 1992, Procedures for Building Seismic Rehabilitation (Interim), Applied TechnologyCouncil, ATC-26-4 Report, Redwood City,
California
ATC, 1995, Addendum to the ATC-20 Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-2Report, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1988a, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook , prepared by the Applied Technology Councilfor the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, FEMA 154 Report, Washington,D.C.
ATC, 1988b, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation, prepared by the AppliedTechnology Council for the FederalEmergency Management Agency, FEMA 155Report, Washington, D.C.
ATC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings , prepared by theApplied Technology Council for the Building
Seismic Safety Council, published by theFederal Emergency Management Agency,FEMA 273 Report, Washington, D.C.
ATC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on theGuidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the AppliedTechnology Council for the Building SeismicSafety Council, published by the FederalEmergency Management Agency, FEMA 274Report, Washington, D.C.
ATC, 2002, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings
for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (2nd edition), prepared by theApplied Technology Council for the FederalEmergency Management Agency, FEMA 155Report, Washington, D.C.
BSSC, 1992, NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, prepared bythe Building Seismic Safety Council for theFederal Emergency Management Agency,FEMA 178 Report, Washington D.C.
BSSC, 1997, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
and Other Structures, and Commentary, prepared by the Building Seismic SafetyCouncil for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, FEMA 302 and 303Reports, Washington, D.C.
BSSC, 2000, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildingsand Other Structures, and Commentary, 2000 Edition, prepared by the Building SeismicSafety Council for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, FEMA 368 and 369Reports, Washington, D.C.
EERI, 1998, Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings:Strategic Plan 2005, prepared by theEarthquake Engineering Research Institute for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,FEMA 315 Report, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 1995, Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Second Edition,FEMA 156 and 157 Reports, Federal
ICBO, 1973, 1997, Uniform Building Code,International Conference of Building Officials,Whittier, California.
NBS, 1980, Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National
Standard A58.1, NBS Special Publication 577, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,D.C.
NIBS, 1999, Earthquake Loss EstimationMethodology HAZUS, Technical Manual ,Vol. 1, prepared by the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, Washington, D.C.
ROA, 1998, Planning for Seismic Rehabilitation:Societal Issues, developed for the BuildingSeismic Safety Council, by Robert Olson
Associates, Inc., for the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, FEMA-275 Report,Washington, D.C.
SAC, 2000, Recommended Seismic DesignCriteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture,a partnership of the Structural EngineersAssociation of California, the AppliedTechnology Council, and CaliforniaUniversities for Research in EarthquakeEngineering, for the Federal Emergency
VSP, 1994, Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model; Volume 1: AUsers Manual and Volume 2: Supporting Documentation; prepared by VSP Associates,Sacramento California, for the FederalEmergency Management Agency, FEMA-255and FEMA-256 Reports, Washington, D.C.